January 13, 2010

Long Live Organic Church!

by Mark Galli

The organic church has been a frequent topic of discussion on this blog. And Leadership journal has featured articles and interviews from Alan Hirsch, Neil Cole, and Frank Viola. Like us, Mark Galli has an appreciation for the efforts and perspective of this movement. But what happens when the organic church starts to wilt? Galli, senior managing editor of Christianity Today, wrote the following article to encourage and caution the movement. The full text can be read on CT's website. Along with responses from Neil Cole and Frank Viola.

I love the work that Neil Cole is doing—and Alan Hirsch (The Forgotten Ways), Bob Roberts (Transformation: How Glocal Churches Transform Lives and the World), Frank Viola (Finding Organic Church), and many, many others.

In one form or another, they are champions of "organic church." The term is fluid, but it contains at least three ingredients: Frustration with the-church-as-we-know-it, a focus on people (vs. programs) and mission (vs. institutional maintenance), and a vision to transform the world.

As Neil Cole put it in his book Organic Church, "It is not enough to fill our churches; we must transform our world." He puts it similarly in his latest effort, Church 3.0. The book is ostensibly about how to shift from program-driven and clergy-led institutions to churches that are "relational, simple, intimate, and viral." Still, says Cole, "Changing the church is not the idea of this book … . The only reason to shift from Church 2.0 to Church 3.0 is to change the world."

I love the passion. And the prophetic word to institutionalism (believe me, I know the evils of institutionalism: I'm an Anglican!). And the vision to make Christ's love and grace known to the four corners of the planet.

What I worry about is the coming crash of organic church.

And after that, I worry about the energetic men and women at the forefront of the movement. Will they become embittered and abandon the church, and maybe their God?
On not kidding ourselves

That the organic church movement will crash, I have no doubt. Every renewal movement in church history has either derailed immediately or produced temporary renewal at the expense of long-term unintended consequences.

Continue reading Mark Galli's article on Christianity Today's site.

Read Neil Cole and Frank Viola's responses to Mark Galli's article.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at January 13, 2010 | Comments (7) | TrackBack

December 17, 2009

Wrong About Church Buildings: 2

by Ken Eastburn

A few weeks ago, pastor and author Dan Kimball posted an interesting entry here about church buildings. In the introduction, he notes that eight years ago he would have said, “Who needs a building? The early church didn’t have buildings, and we don’t need them either!” Today, however, he notes that he was wrong.

I think he still is.

Here is my official response to Dan Kimball.

Dear Dan,

I recently read your post where you say that you were wrong about church buildings. At first, I was glad to see the title. I’m a house church leader. We used to be a traditional Southern Baptist church—building and all. But that all changed in 2005. Since then, we’ve been meeting in homes and living out the call of God without a building. And that’s why your post troubled me so much.

It is not that I hate buildings. Because we have identified our cause as “Leave the Building,” I often get mistaken for a building-hater, but that is not the case. “Leave the Building” is about removing the things that limit us in our service for God or somehow get in the way of what he is trying to accomplish through us. For me and my church, it was our building.

But it will not be that way for everyone. In fact, traditional churches and building-attending Christians can “leave the building” while still attending a traditional, building-based church.

I want to underscore my respect for you, and I believe we share a deep love for the Body of Christ. I see you as a fellow worker; a brother in Christ. And I am thankful that we have the opportunity to sharpen one another as we both occupy positions of leadership within the Church.

I am writing this because the subject of the necessity of buildings is a crucial topic to discuss all across the Church. You do indeed describe good uses for buildings … but what is good, may not be best – either for your church or for the Body of Christ worldwide. Allow me to explain. After you listed good uses of both your church’s building and others’ (i.e. Compassion International), you made this statement:

“These missional opportunities would not be possible without a building.”

There are three reasons why I think you’re mistaken.

First, being missional involves more than just being nice to people. Having a coffeehouse with free internet is great, it is nice, but it is not missional. Panera offers the same thing, but they’re not missional. The same goes for providing shelter – by itself it is not missional, it is just nice. Being missional is the act of making disciples – that is the mission of the Church as found in Matthew 28:18-21.

Second, you confuse convenience as necessity. This is a common problem with the Church in America. But let’s use “need” appropriately: Compassion International doesn’t need a building in order to help orphans. It may be convenient and even better for the time being, but it is not a necessity. And your church doesn’t need a coffee lounge in order to reach out to college students. It may make it easier, but it is not a necessity. The same goes for helping families displaced by fires. Surely, having a building makes it convenient and much easier to respond, but your church didn’t need a building in order to help.

Third, your building may be preventing you from doing what God really wants from you. Let’s take the wildfire situation as an example. Putting people up in your church is great. Really. But imagine what kind of long-term relationships could have been formed were they taken into houses instead. Imagine the opportunity to really be missional! It may very well be that you actually missed an opportunity on that one all because your “mission” is anchored to your building.

You were right the first time. The early church didn’t need buildings, and neither do we. The fact that many churches think they do need a building is not just a 21st century thing, it is an American thing…a rich thing. Churches around the world manage to be missional, make disciples, and spread the good news, without any building whatsoever. Even more, they are doing it better than churches in the West with buildings. You see, it is not buildings that create a consumer-mentality, it is just the opposite. It is our consumer-mentality that causes us to think we need buildings. Buildings can be great tools, but the Church gets by…no, the Church thrives … every day without them.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at December 17, 2009 | Comments (41) | TrackBack

November 19, 2009

Angry Preachers or Gospel Musicians?

by David Swanson

There wasn’t much that could have distracted me on the way to the train station on a recent Saturday evening. After two days at an outdoor music festival—in the rain one day and under the blazing sun the next—I wanted nothing more than to return to our apartment for a long shower and some blessed quiet. Lollapalooza was a blast, a great opportunity to see some new bands and observe Chicago’s diverse youth culture. I might have stayed for the day’s final acts, but I’m a pastor and my ringing ears and tired legs needed a good night’s sleep before Sunday morning.

Before I’d walked even a block from the festival, I bumped into a small crowd whose attention was fixed on two men speaking loudly to the bedraggled onlookers. One held a handmade sign that read—I kid you not— “TURN OR BURN!” He spoke into a bullhorn, warning the young people of God’s coming judgment and listing in vivid detail the sins that would lead them to an eternity burning in hell. The other man held an open Bible and vigorously debated anyone who disagreed with his companion’s portrayal of God.

For the past two days, I’d watched these young people pursue beauty and friendship and community. Groups of sunburned 20somethings had made their way from one stage to the next, avoiding mud puddles and speaking with awe in their voices about their favorite musical experiences of the weekend. And now, as they left the safety of the festival grounds, they were immediately confronted with Jesus. Or at least two of Jesus’ representatives.

A few in the crowd poked fun and tried to fluster the preachers. What really caught my attention, though, what overruled my fatigue, was another response. Despite this generation’s reputation as cynical and sarcastic, many of the young wore visible sadness on their faces. Some pleaded with Bullhorn Man for a different portrayal of Jesus. A few people asked Bible Man if his God had any love for them. One young man was on the edge of tears as he tried to convince the men to lower their voices, to show kindness in their words about Jesus.

Ten minutes of this street theatre was enough and, quenching my desire to punch Bullhorn Man and Bible Man, I continued toward the train. As I often do after encountering this version of Christian witness, I angrily questioned why these men did what they did. How could they possibly think their language and posture was helpful? Is this what Jesus had in mind when he felt compassion for the harassed and helpless crowds—sheep without a shepherd—and asked his disciples to pray for more workers for the harvest? My irritation only increased as I thought about how the irreligious and marginalized of his day were attracted to Jesus. Whether or not they would have accepted his easy yoke, certainly these festival goers would have been intrigued by the alternative life Jesus proclaimed and demonstrated.

Here’s the thing: Bullhorn Man and Bible Man don’t exist in a vacuum. Their theology and evangelistic practice comes from somewhere. My guess? These men belong to a church that believes salvation from Hell is the primary motivation for a relationship with God and views direct confrontation as the most effective evangelism. What appears to me a gross distortion of the Gospel and an incredibly ineffective means of proclaiming that Gospel are to these men natural responses to the preaching and community life of their church. Their spiritual formation, like mine, has been significantly shaped by their Christian community.

What types of witnesses are our churches forming? What public representation of Jesus do we create through our preaching, worship, liturgy, service, and fellowship? While I seriously doubt members of our church are shouting through bullhorns and waving homemade signs, can I rest assured that we are living as captivating and confident witnesses in Chicago to the Gospel of Jesus?

As I descended the stairs to the train platform, I was greeted by more music. Two men had set up a keyboard and an electric drum and were entertaining the waiting passengers, many of whom had just come from the festival. The musicians played skillfully and sang a Gospel song with the unambiguous refrain, “In the Lord I put my trust.” Here the small audience of festival goers smiled and clapped generously, their obvious appreciation for the musicians a total contrast to the emotions elicited by the street preachers. “Those guys were really good,” I heard one passenger say once we boarded the train. “Yeah,” replied his companion, “They told me they write all of their songs.” The crowd had engaged Bullhorn Man in anger and distress, while the Gospel musicians provoked conversation out of admiration.

If the street preachers were formed by a certain church culture, so too were these musicians. The dramatic differences in the Jesus they witnessed to were a sobering reminder to me of the public ramifications of our theology and practice. Does our preaching and worship lead to fearful confrontation or creative engagement? Are our churches forming angry street preachers or skillful Gospel musicians?

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at November 19, 2009 | Comments (42) | TrackBack

November 13, 2009

The Future of Church Facilities

by Eric Reed

Until recently, churches responded to growing attendance by building larger facilities. But the faltering economy makes raising large sums for building projects harder to accomplish. And combined with the aversion of younger churchgoers to the bigger-is-better ministry philosophy, these tight-money days are demanding imaginative alternatives. For some churches, the question has become, "Should we build at all?"

"We have told many clients in the last couple years, 'You're not ready to build, because you aren't sure what your ministry is,'" said Ed Bahler of the Aspen Group, a church design firm. "So what once took a few weeks has become a six- to twelve-month process: determining what their vision is and what they really need to do that ministry." The firm now focuses on guiding church leaders through the vision process.

"People ask us what ministry will look like in ten years—with the impact of technology and the desire to attract younger people driving many of the choices they make today," Bahler said.

"For some of these churches, the answer is not a new building. They can't afford it, and it won't accomplish their true purpose. It may be renovation of older sanctuaries, or holding services on multiple sites and venues."

And for those who do build, it may be a very different building.

Instead of a larger worship center, one church built an additional, smaller worship space complete with stained glass, as an additional venue. Their study before building showed the Catholic backgrounds of many potential attenders created a desire for a church that feels like "church."

That's also a common desire among younger people, partly in reaction to the big-box multi-purpose warehouse-church decades.

Does this mean goodbye to the cafegymitorium? Perhaps. And perhaps, too, to the giant fundraising thermometer-tote board in the lobby.

Ed Bahler and Bill Couchenour, presidents of two independent church design and construction companies and co-founders of the Cornerstone Knowledge Network, have decades of hands-on experience when it comes to creating effective ministry space. Skye Jethani will be interviewing Bahler and Couchenour about what church leaders should do before they decide to build or renovate their facilities. Sign up for the live webinar on November 17th.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at November 13, 2009 | Comments (6) | TrackBack

October 7, 2009

Reggie McNeal: 4-phrase definition of The Missional Church

Reggie McNeal, missional specialist for Leadership Network, spoke about his new book, Missional Renaissance (Wiley):

As people emerged from the Renaissance, they could no longer think about the world the same way. Copernican heliocentric view of the solar system, for example, changes the way people view the sky. Similarly, changes are affecting how we view the world and church. These changes may be the biggest since the Reformation. "Doing church better" won't matter, since we've got the best churches we've ever had.

The Missional Church is:

the people of God,
We've been brought up in a world where church is a what, an it, something outside of me, something I go to, something I support, something I bring friends to. But the missional movement is about who. Until we get this, we will never join God in the streets where he is doing most of his work. Wherever I am, the church is already planted. Instead of planting "a" church, we plant "the" church.

partnering with him,
It's not our mission; it's his. We try to get God to fall in love with our efforts, when we need to fall in love with his mission. We consider "children's ministry" inside our walls, so we're so busy doing that, but we don't worry about the low reading levels of 3rd graders in our community. We honor Sunday school teachers as doing children's ministry, but we don't honor public school teachers as doing children's ministry.

in his redemptive mission
One church cancelled staff meeting on Monday afternoon and sent everyone out to pray, in a place where people are: park, Wal-Mart, Starbucks, etc. For 60 minutes, they were to pray one prayer, "Lord, help me see what You see." When they came back to their institutional agenda, they shredded it and were recaptured by the heart of God for people. They sent the entire church out to do the same; that night they had the church write what God showed them.

in the world
What if we asked if marriages in our community were better next year? If schools were better? In Cincinnati, every single school teacher is placed on a prayer chain, and receives a letter asking for any prayer requests. Open our eyes.

Which of these 4 phrases is the biggest challenge for you? Which is the biggest challenge for your congregation?

Catalyst Leadership is a new digital magazine combining the wisdom of Leadership Journal with the innovation of the Catalyst Conference. Sign up for your free subscription today at CatalystLeadershipDigital.com/subscribe/

Posted by Kevin Miller at October 7, 2009 | Comments (1) | TrackBack

October 1, 2009

Ur Video: Stetzer & Hirsch on Multi-Site

Key ideas:

Stetzer--Is multi-site being used to give great communicators a larger audience, or is it being used to raise up more communicators?

Stetzer--Multi-site isn't a big phenomenon in post-Christian settings. It's much more popular among Christians willing to come to church and watch a pastor on a screen.

Hirsch--Any model that makes the people of God more passive is a problem.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at October 1, 2009 | Comments (9) | TrackBack

September 25, 2009

Ur Cartoon: Seeker Sensitive

You can see more cartoons from Roger Judd in every issue of our free digital magazine, Catalyst Leadership.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at September 25, 2009 | Comments (3) | 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 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

July 24, 2009

The Most Dangerous Place in America

The situations in Iran and North Korea continue to concern us and our government, but where is the most dangerous place in America?

New York City? Detroit? Baltimore? Chicago? Los Angeles?

Large cities such as these have received a lot of attention as havens of crime, disorder, and mayhem. Violent crimes and societal concerns seem common in our concrete jungles.

But what about cities like Irvine, California; Lake Forest, Illinois; Plano, Texas; and Ellicott City, Maryland?

Irvine, California, was given the title, "Safest City in America" (over 100,000 people) by the Federal Bureau of Investigation on June 1, 2009. I would like to submit that suburbs just like this may actually be the most dangerous places in America.

The suburban enclaves - with their middle-class citizens and well- manicured lawns, gates and guards protecting their Orwellian lifestyle and toys, Starbucks a few minutes from each busy intersection, and some of the best schools in the country - may actually be the most dangerous places to live. We may not have the high murder counts or robberies that urban centers have, but I wonder if the suburbs have become breeding grounds for the accessible and shallow thrills of drugs and alcohol abuse, extravagant parties and proms, and mere facades of happiness and the American dream. Just ask your local city drug dealer about his primary consumers: suburban teenagers and college students.

I'm not a researcher, but my gut impression from my travels and interactions with youth in the major cities of the world, as well as in suburbs and rural communities, is that they are all equally dangerous, just in different ways.

The dangers of the suburbs entail the lack of imagination (where do you find real art museums, innovative music venues, and creative opportunities to explore nature?); materialism; greed; isolation behind cookie-cutter neighborhoods and homogeneous clubs and churches; boredom: apathy; fascination with the relevant more than the real; a love affair with popularity more than loving the poor; and a thirst for excitement superficially satisfied in the Friday night party. All this takes precedence over a dangerous ride with God on the frontlines of his movement.

Ironically, guess what consistently is the hottest selling type of music in the suburbs? Hip Hop! Check out this article from Wall Street Journal from June of 2005.

Why do you think Hip Hop is so popular among Suburban youth? Hip hop is a voice to which suburban kids want to relate. Perhaps some wannabe has some connection to reality through hip hop, while others envision radical change and revolution, inspired to be at the forefront of a new generation of leaders who will not remain silent. It's a type of music that breathes with the vibe of danger and rawness. Although you may not like the themes at times or the language, It's honest and from the soul.

My concern is that our children are missing out on one of the greatest moments to live in the history of humanity. These are the times of global shifts and crises and once-in-a-life time opportunities. Our generation and the next can be so focused on our own survival and satisfaction that we miss out on one of the wildest adventures. Hip hop music has become the voice of our youth. It describes a thirst for danger that is wild and out of control. It's filled with angst and pain. These elements are the seeds of revolution in the cities. My prayer is that the intrinsic frustration and boredom in the suburbs and rural cities of America will find its purpose in a radical revolution of love.

Perhaps instead of a one-week mission trip, the next generation will commit to a lifetime of roaming the earth in the power of the Holy Spirit such has never been seen before. Sure, our cities have been the focus of the church, but let's not forget the quiet suburbs - the current breeding ground of potential zealots who are looking for something more to awaken them out of their boredom.

In response to what I wrote above, my teammate, Dave Brubaker wrote:

The verse I love for this (if you want one) - Luke 12:13–21. It really could be about the suburbs. The guy is so rich, he's afforded the luxury of isolation. He's so alone in his gated community that when he needs financial council he has no one to confer with but himself (verse 17); he's so out of touch with the poor and needy, he can't think of a single person to share with when he's got extra. The only idea that comes to his mind is to make bigger barns (verse 18). Apparently God finds this so detestable, he kills the guy (verse 20) - the words "your life will be demanded from you" actually make up a financial term re: collecting a loan; in this case the "loan" that God is collecting is life.

Easy to judge this guy as a "fool," but the truth is he is awfully "successful" by suburban standards.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at July 24, 2009 | Comments (30) | TrackBack

July 13, 2009

Ur Video: Donald Miller on Life and Story

Hear more from Donald Miller at the STORY conference October 28-29 in Chicago. Learn more about the event at storychicago.com.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at July 13, 2009 | Comments (1) | TrackBack

July 2, 2009

Limited Too is Now Justice

by Troy Jackson

Recently I needed to repair my car and chose a mechanic across the street from Kenwood Towne Center near Cincinnati. Typically, when a mall is too proud to call itself a mall, the shops are upscale, and Kenwood is no exception. So while my vehicle was repaired, I went to the mall for an overpriced cup of coffee.

My eye caught an unexpected store name. In bright pink letters across the entry was "Justice," with a heart dotting the "i" for good measure. Seeing no photos of Martin Luther King or Gandhi or Dorothy Day, I looked up again to make sure I had read the sign correctly. Then I noticed a banner below the sign, which simply said, "Limited Too is now Justice."

Even entering the store, I knew that my definition of justice had very little to do with the products peddled by "Justice."

But the rebranding of Limited Too is part of a larger social trend. Justice is hip, even in our churches. Over the past five years, church after church has made justice a more prominent part of their stated mission, objectives, and vision.

But while we've added justice to our theological working vocabulary, when I closely at our programs and priorities, I see a much greater emphasis on compassion and mercy than on what the Bible describes as justice.

These compassion efforts are laudable. Who can argue with digging wells in Africa or tutoring poor urban children on the other side of town? Truly, that's caring for "the least of these." The renewed compassion and concern on behalf of the poor is long overdue. But to brand these efforts as "justice" misses the full definition of the term. We mustn't conflate charity and compassion with biblical justice.

Read Troy Jackson's entire article starting on page 10 in the latest issue of Catalyst Leadership. Click here and then select "Limited Too is Now Justice" from the Table of Contents.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at July 2, 2009 | Comments (13) | TrackBack

June 22, 2009

Do It, Don't Blog It

by Dan Kimball

I was a guest speaker at a church, waiting for my time to go up to the platform. That's when I saw something curious. The staff person responsible for coordinating the worship service was busy typing away on her laptop. Perhaps a last minute change to the PowerPoint, I thought. But as I walked behind her, I saw that she was consumed with typing a message on someone's Facebook wall. It felt out of place to me, given that she was the person responsible for leading God's people in worship but she seemed mentally someplace else.

I had a similar experience while visiting a Christian college. Sitting in the back of the classroom, I noticed that about a third of the students were surfing Facebook or MySpace while the professor was passionately teaching the New Testament. He probably assumed they were busy taking notes.

I cannot be too hard on the worship coordinator or the college students. I've noticed the same tendency in myself lately. A few Sundays ago, I was heading home after preaching three times. I was tired and looking forward to opening my laptop and reading my favorite blogsÑparticularly ones focused on missional theology and leadership. Just then I received a text message from a friend. He was inviting me to a club to see a band with a number of non-Christians, including one I had been trying to build a relationship with.

I suddenly faced a decision. Do I go home and read blogs about being missional, or do I go to the club and actually be missional? It sounds like an easy decision, but it wasn't. In all honesty, part of me truly wanted to go to the comfort of home and just sit in front of my laptop.

That moment forced me to begin reflecting on how much time I spend on blogs, Twitter, Facebook, and other online social networking sites. I wondered, If I spent less time online, could I be spending more time building friendships? Have I become so consumed with reading about mission that I've forgotten to actually engage it? As these questions arose, I started to get uncomfortable.

Don't misunderstand me. I find blogs quite encouraging. I've learned a lot about missional living by reading insightful bloggers. I have even gotten reacquainted with non-Christian friends from years ago on Facebook. But in truth, the bulk of my Facebook time is spent conversing with Christian friends and other church leaders. And most of the missional discussion I read online does not include stories of people coming to faith, but theoretical definitions and debates about what being missional actually means.

Theories and definitions and debates are good, and they have their place, but could they be getting in the way of actually being on mission? After reflecting on my own habits, I concluded that in my life they were. I realized that I had subtly gotten drawn into the very thing I found so troubling about the Facebooking worship leader and the inattentive college students. I still read blogs and write one, too. But I'm trying to be much more intentional about finding balance and keeping my priorities right.

After wrestling with whether to go home and blog or go to the club and engage with my non-Christian friend, I finally came to the right decision. When I walked into the club, my friend saw me and immediately brought over a drink. We caught up on life, and after the show, he thanked me multiple times for coming. When his tour ends, we have plans to spend more time together. A friendship was deepened and an opportunity for the gospel was expanded, all because I chose to be missional rather than just blog about it.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at June 22, 2009 | Comments (24) | TrackBack

June 19, 2009

Putting Programs in Their Place

by Brandon O'Brien

In some circles, the term "church programs" has become an epithet for all that is wrong with the institutional church. For a generation hungry for authenticity and community, "programs" feel staged, impersonal, and cold. For a generation increasingly skeptical of government, big business, and corporate machinery in general, "programs" reek of institutionalism, bureaucracy, and insensitivity to human need. Programs may not be the problem, but they are certainly a symptom. They give us something to throw stones at.

To a certain extent, these feelings are justified. After all, programs are the means by which we draw people into our churches. Once they're in, we get them involved by participating in or leading our programs. Participation in programs becomes the way we judge how "involved" people are - if they're engaged in our programs, we call them "committed." Programs become a means by which we judge our effectiveness as ministers - we can know we're doing a lot for Jesus, because we're running so many successful programs. In some churches, it appears the congregation exists to serve the church's programming.

Some folks have responded to this reality by eliminating programs all together. "We're about people, not programs," they say. Instead of investing in formal ministries, they would rather invest in human relationships. And I agree: the church is the physical body of Christ on earth; an organism, not an organization. Even so, programs are biblical, if they are done the right way.

One of the places in the New Testament that most clearly addresses anything like church programming is Acts 6:1–7. The short and long of it is this: the church is growing, but the Grecian Jews are complaining to the Hebraic Jews because the Hellenistic widows are being overlooked in the daily distribution of food. (Daily food distribution is a program, right?)

This passage offers a corrective vision of what a program should look like.

It begins with a community need that is theologically justifiable. All the widows weren't being fed. This has serious implications. To begin with, the problem was creating a problem in the fellowship - it threatened to destroy the unity that was a primary marker of the Christian church. Furthermore, the early church knew that gospel compelled them to care for widows (James 1:27). In order to be faithful to their calling, then, they needed to do something. So…

It is overseen by qualified folks. The apostles decided that the church should choose 7 men whom they considered "full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom." Presumably, such men (in this case there were only men) would be concerned about the things the Spirit was concerned about - the unity of the church and the care of widows. And their service would free the apostles to do what they were called to do: "prayer and the ministry of the word."

It leads to the expansion of the Kingdom. Because of this program, Luke tells us, "the word of God spread" and the "number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly." I imagine this was because the church was doing what it was supposed to be doing and the apostles were doing what they were supposed to be doing.
I've pastored a couple of churches and served on countless committees, and I can say with relative confidence that if we subjected all our programs to these three criteria in any of those churches, we would have cut our number of programs considerably.

Instead of beginning with a community need that's theologically justifiable, we tended to run programs because we felt we should ("The church growth books say you need a small group program if you want to be successful.").

Instead of finding folks to lead who are "full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom," we'd enlist any poor sucker with a pulse and a guilt complex to oversee a program they felt no real commitment to. When we had burned through enough volunteers, the staff would take over the program, which kept them from prayer and the ministry of the word.

And instead of leading to the expansion of the kingdom, programs selected and run this way tended to use people up, overtax the staff, and result in exhaustion, bitterness, and a dearth of resources.

In other words, I don't think programs are the problem. The problem is the way we choose them and the way we run them. It's hard to deny that the church should serve people through formal ministries. Whether you call them co-ops, initiatives, or whatever, at the end of the day they're still programs.

But maybe I'm missing something. How does this strike you? Are there other criteria you use to decide what programs to launch and which ones to trash? Does Acts 6 affect the way you think about programs in any way?

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at June 19, 2009 | Comments (8) | TrackBack

June 9, 2009

Advance 09: The Conclusion

by Chad Hall

The final day and a half of Advance 09 built upon the themes started on the first day, brought another talk from Mark Driscoll, and marked the arrival of the Baptists - researcher and author Ed Stetzer, local Durham pastor J.D. Greer, the one and only John Piper, and Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary president Daniel Aiken.

I'm still not entirely sure what to make of the Acts 29/Southern Baptist connection. I know there's a Calvinist resurgence among Southern Baptists, but they still seem like strange bedfellows to me.

The juxtaposition was clear on Saturday morning. When the worship team from Mars Hill Seattle gave the platform over to Daniel Aiken, I experienced some mental whiplash. The group from Mars Hill offered a loud mixture of Green Day and the David Crowder Band. Then Aiken offered a fine sermon, but in a style and substance straight from an old-school Baptist revival or pastors' conference - complete with the voice inflections that southern preachers have been perfecting for going on a century now. Having served the North Carolina Baptist Convention for nearly a decade, I can understand a fringe of Southern Baptists overlapping with Acts 29, but Aiken is at the center of Southern Baptist life and didn't seem to fit the conference.

Meanwhile, one of the best talks I've heard in a while came from another Southern Baptist, Ed Stetzer, who spoke on the church as a sign and instrument of the kingdom of God. Two of his best comments went something like this:

1) "Some of you here need to get over the man crush you have on Driscoll and love the church you are in." Wow.

2) "Conferences like this can be a sort of pornography that promotes an unrealistic image of the church - one that is sure to leave you disappointed and feeling that you deserve something better than the church you serve back home." Wow number two.

He went on to say, "Most of us here are not going to serve a hip church filled with cool people. So stop wishing and waiting for a church that's cool enough to deserve you and start serving the church you're in." Someone needs to say this at every conference.

Speaking of Driscoll (if I dare, after Stetzer's comment and the heat some Out of Ur commenters threw out over the weekend!), he gave his second talk about some of the idols that plague churches and leaders. Two of the seven were especially powerful.

The first idol was money. He said that two theologies make an idol of money: the prosperity gospel (which says those who have money are holy), and the poverty gospel (which says if you don't have money you are holy). I couldn't agree more. I just don't see "God's preferential option for the poor" in the Bible.

The other idol Driscoll mentioned was "truth." - when we make a certain truth into an idol, we place that truth above the gospel (bad enough), but we also must demonize others who hold a different truth. He used Calvinism and Arminianism as an example. Then the clincher: "Some of you will say, 'Pastor Mark, don't you do this?' and I have to respond, 'I am the chief of sinners.'"

The guy I was most curious to hear was Piper. I confess that I have never read any of his books, listened to any of his sermons, or even seen a picture of the man. But his name and quotations are all over the place, plus he's currently in sort of a nice-guy theological slapdown with N.T. Wright, so I wondered what the fuss was about.

Piper gave two talks, both of which dealt with missions and the need to once again engage in worldwide missions to the peoples of the earth. His talk on the second day, on prayer, was much more engaging and helpful. The apex was his comment: "You cannot know what prayer is for until you know that life is war." He built upon the war imagery by saying that when it comes to prayer, we've taken a wartime walkie-talkie and turned it into a domestic intercom. So instead of calling in God's armies to help us overtake a dangerous enemy, we treat God like a butler and ask him for little favors associated with our comfort.

I'm in no danger of developing a "man crush" on Piper (and his strangely permanent smile is still freaking me out just a bit!), but I did appreciate his thoughtful engagement of the topics and his obvious zeal for God. I think the same can be said for the conference as a whole - it was engaging, thoughtful, and mostly concerned for God's mission for the world and our place in that mission.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at June 9, 2009 | Comments (22) | TrackBack

May 6, 2009

Is a Beer just a Beer?

by Brandon O'Brien

I spent a semester abroad in Edinburgh, Scotland, during college and attended a great church there. On my first visit to the head deacon's house for dinner, he asked me what I'd like to drink. I asked him what my options were. "Well," he said, "we have beer, lager, ale, stout, scotch, sherry, wine - whatever you like."

"I'll have water, please."

It became more obvious the longer I was in Edinburgh that abstinence from alcohol was not a Christian distinctive. Christians decried drunkenness. But the pubs were where they had spiritual conversation and met for small group.

I chalked up the differences between my teetotalling background and Scottish license to cultural differences. A lot changes when you cross the Big Pond. But now a growing number of American pastors are passing the bottle in the name of Christian liberty. As Eric Reed reports, the changes may be leading to a new battle over prohibition.

The excerpt below is from Eric's article, "Trouble Brewing." Follow the link below for the full text.

It's not just Baptists who are wrestling anew with the issue of alcohol. Pastors in a variety of traditions - some teetotaling, some not - are dealing with new issues raised by the drinking debate.

For some, it's whether to go against their denominations when the written policy differs from Christian positions held before Prohibition. For others, it's the conflict felt by pastoring people who officially espouse abstinence but still lift a glass to personal freedom now and again (46 percent of Southern Baptists imbide, according to a survey in the 1990s). For still others, it's reaching a position on alcohol that is biblical, moral, and defensible.

And for everyone there is this question: How do we take a stance on alcohol that does not distance us from the very people we are trying to reach with the gospel, and without compromising the gospel or our personal witness?

These issues may be grouped in a few categories:

Text and context
Mark Driscoll is a lightning rod for controversy, so it's not surprising that his stance on drinking clergy has become central in the renewed debate. His better contribution to the argument is on the larger issue of contextualization of the gospel in a society of drinkers.

Driscoll agrees that the Scripture opposes drunkenness. He says drinking itself is not a sin, as prohibitionists would contend. He argues that it is unreasonable to be captive to others because of the possibility of their weakness, as abstentionists would advocate. Driscoll says moderationists "rightly teach that drinking is not a sin and that each person must let Christian conscience guide them without judging others."

Driscoll's position has been commended, even by some who disagree with his conclusion, as being biblically reasoned and unhindered by his personal baggage: "Driscoll did not come to his conclusions lightly," reports one mission-focused blog. "Sadly many of us proclaim and hold to legalistic positions regarding alcohol use. (Is anybody else tired of the 'My daddy was a drunkard, so every use of alcoholic beverage will lead to people becoming like my daddy.' If so, note that Driscoll came from an entire family of abusive alcoholics, and he does not have the same conclusion.)"

Driscoll outlines three categories of faulty contextualization:

1. Pharasaic separation from culture: creation of laws that keep people from getting too close to sin;
2. Sadducaic syncretism: adopting compromising behaviors for the sake of speaking to the culture;
3. Zealous domination: enforcing moral laws through political means that may inoculate people against the gospel.

In Reformission, Driscoll concludes that these faulty forms of contextualization will lead to either sectarianism or syncretism. "Sectarians love God but fail to love their neighbor. Syncretists love their neighbor but fail to love God. Jesus expects us to love him and our neighbor (including our enemies) and says that if we fail to do so, we are no better than the godless pagans who love their drinking and strip-poker playing buddies (Matt. 5:43-57). To love our neighbors, we must meet them in their culture. To love our neighbors, we must call them to repent of sin and be transformed by Jesus."

But critics may respond, Can we really call people to repentance while nursing a rum and Coke?

Read the full text of "Trouble Brewing" here.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at May 6, 2009 | Comments (41) | TrackBack

April 25, 2009

Tackling the Sex Trade: Live from Catalyst

Friday morning's opening session began with a powerful music video that told the story of a thirteen-year-old girl from the Philippines named Constance. The video was based on a true story and told how Constance was sold by her father into sex slavery for $9. The man who bought her used her as a star on his website. I didn't catch all the lyrics, but the video sent a powerful message about the pervasive effects of sex trafficking - a man paying the subscription fee for a porn site in his suburban home may be propagating the sale and purchase of human beings for sex.

Following the video was a short panel discussion with three women who are on the front lines of the war against the sex trade. Jeannie Mai is a television host who recently spent two weeks ministering in the red light district of Bangkok, Thailand. She was joined by Naomi Zacharias (daughter of Ravi Zacharias) of Wellspring International and Bethany Hoang from International Justice Mission.

Bethany presented some staggering information. Sex trafficking currently enslaves 27 million people, more than were affected by the trans-Atlantic enslavement of Africans through the 19th century. That makes human trafficking the third largest black market today, after guns and drugs. In light of these overwhelming numbers, Bethany insisted that we must lead with hope. We have to believe that "the church truly is the answer to this problem, that the body of Christ can bring down this whole operation."

So what can we do? Jeannie encouraged us to pray. "Passionately pray and God begins to open doors to opportunities you didn't know existed in your area." Bethany reinforced the message that small efforts can make a huge difference. She told the story of a church of about 80 members that had been saving money to build their first facility. Then they heard that a huge need in the Philippines was for aftercare facility for women coming out of sex trafficking. In response, they decided they didn't need a building and gave their whole building fund to finance the after care facility. A church of any size can make an enormous difference, if it's willing to get involved.

Naomi Zacharias made what I thought was perhaps the most poignant observation. "Sexuality is something the church is still really intimidated by," she said, "so talking about sex trafficking is very uncomfortable." On the one hand, we don't really know how to respond to people involved in the sex trade. One prostitute in Mumbai asked Naomi, "If I walked into your church, would they see me as a woman or would they see me as a prostitute?" Naomi hesitated, and the woman added, "They want me to leave, but they never want to let me forget what I was."
On the other hand, and in light of our recent conversations about addictions, I wonder how the problem of Christian porn addiction perpetuates these challenges. Beyond the problem of funding the sex trade (by paying for porn), I wonder how many of us would be uncomfortable ministering to women escaping sex slavery, because we too have our own struggles with sexual sin. If a pastor struggles with a porn addiction, can he honestly tell a recovering prostitute that he can lead her to the life God wants for her?

The conversation that began here today would be a great one to continue. Have any of you been involved in ministries that target the sex trade? If so, tell us how we can get involved.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at April 25, 2009 | Comments (6) | TrackBack

April 16, 2009

Skye Jethani: The Daisy Cutter Doctrine

Today over twenty blogs are participating in a book tour for Skye Jethani's The Divine Commodity. The fact that Jethani is a card-carrying Urthling is why we felt the Ur audience should participate in the blog tour as well. Below is an excerpt from Chapter 9 of The Divine Commodity where Jethani addresses the assumption that Christ's enormous mission is best accomplished by equally enormous strategies, and how this mindset is rooted in consumer sensibilities. A longer excerpt from the book is also featured in the spring issue of Leadership.

In the coming days we will be announcing a contest in which 50 Urbanites can win a free copy of Jethani's book. Until then, you can click here for a list of the other 23 blogs participating in The Divine Commodity tour today.

Book Excerpt:
The pattern is predictable. A few thousand young church leaders gather at a warm climate resort for two and a half days to have a "life changing ministry experience." They shuffle into the hotel's main ballroom, bags of complementary goodies in hand, where their internal organs are realigned by the worship band's bass-thumping remix of How Great Thou Art. After which the marquee speaker will fire up the audience with a call to "change the world for Christ," "impact a generation with the Gospel," or "spark a revival in the church." Throughout the stump speech, the presenter will wax eloquent about the fate he or she foresees for the new generation of church leaders in the audience. "Your generation will do what mine could not." "You will be the generation to change the world." Convinced of their manifest destiny, the twenty-somethings will head off to breakout sessions where they will learn the skills to impact the world - usually from other twenty-somethings.

I say the pattern is predictable because I've been to a fair number of ministry conferences and I've led my share of breakout sessions, and like most church leaders I've gotten use to hearing the drumbeat of revolution. I call it the Daisy Cutter Doctrine: "Change the world through massive cultural upheaval and high-impact tactics."

Daisy Cutter is the nickname of the largest non-nuclear bomb in the military's arsenal. In our age of laser guided "smart" bombs, the Daisy Cutter isn't dropped to destroy targets anymore but to intimidate the enemy. When impact is more important than precision, there's nothing better than a 15,000 pound daisy cutter for the mission.

Likewise, the Daisy Cutter Doctrine is an approach to mission that values high-impact and visibility above all else. This explains why most presenters at ministry conferences are leaders of big churches. Their ministry's size is valued, and in some cases envied, by those in attendance who have come to learn how they too can ignite their full potential for maximum missional impact.

The shock and awe approach to mission is extremely appealing to people shaped by consumerism. It taps into our consumer-oriented desire for big impact and feeds the assumption that large equals legit. The psychological appeal is never explicit but always present: by making a huge impact you can convince the world of God's legitimacy as well as your own. That is an enticing promise particularly for younger leaders, many of whom have yet to establish their legitimacy and may have latent feelings of inadequacy.

But there is a less incriminating reason why we are attracted to the Daisy Cutter Doctrine - a big mission seems to logically demand a big strategy. Jesus has given his students an enormous task, "go and make disciples of all nations?." It's a mission that matches the scope of his own cosmic agenda.

When Christians with a consumer consciousness try to wrap their imaginations around such a large undertaking, they will automatically think about products or corporations that have impacted the world and emulate the same methodologies. So we ask, how does Coca-Cola impact the world? How does Disney impact the world? How does Starbucks impact the world? And we forget to ask the only question that really matters: How does Jesus impact the world?

We have incorrectly made the scale of our methods conform to the scale of our mission. We have assumed that the magnitude of the ends should be proportional to the magnitude of the means. And in the process we've revealed how captivated our imaginations really are to consumerism. Gregory Boyd points out the error: "We are to transform the world. That's the call. But the way you do it from a kingdom perspective is very different from the way you do it from the world's perspective."

Failure to understand this has scarred the church throughout history. For example, through much of its history the church in Europe employed conventional (worldly) means to advance its spiritual mission. This resulted in the gospel being spread by the sword. We now look back at the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the slaughter of native peoples in the Americas mournfully. Centuries removed from those atrocities we wonder - how could people do such things in the name of Christ? Did they not see how inconsistent those methods were with the ways of Jesus? At the time, of course, they did not.

Today we consider ourselves more enlightened, but are we? We may not use the sword to advance the church's mission anymore, but the sword is no longer the conventional instrument of power and influence. Today the church emulates the methods of corporations and business, and most of us never pause and ask whether such tactics are consistent with the ways of Christ. Like the Crusaders, we seem content to leave such judgments for future generations whose vision will be sharpened by history.

The Daisy Cutter Doctrine has plagued the church for centuries. We've fallen into the conventional thinking that a big mission calls for big tactics. But, as Boyd said, the ways of the world differ from the ways of the kingdom. In the economy of God's kingdom, big does not beget big. It's precisely the opposite. The overwhelming message of Jesus life and teaching is that small begets big. Consider God's plan to redeem creation (big) is achieved through his incarnation as an impoverished baby (small). Jesus feeds thousands on a hillside (big) with just a few fish and loaves (small). Christ seeks to make disciples of all nations (big) and he starts with a handful of fishermen (small). Even David defeated Goliath (big) with a few stones (small).

All of this affirms the counter-intuitive nature of God's kingdom. The wisdom of God will not be grasped by those captivated by conventionality; it requires a far larger imagination. As Paul writes: "Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?...God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God."

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at April 16, 2009 | Comments (14) | TrackBack

March 12, 2009

Mark Galli Weighs in on Evangelical Demise

Senior managing editor of our sister publication, Christianity Today, posted a response to iMonk's prophecies about the end of evangelicalism on the CT website Wednesday afternoon. Here's the first bit. You can read the rest there.

The Internet is abuzz with the latest prognostications about "the coming evangelical collapse." This is the substance of three blog posts over at Internet Monk (a.k.a. Michael Spencer), who predicts said collapse in ten years. When his thoughts got picked up and condensed by the Christian Science Monitor and then the Drudge Report - well, you can just imagine the electronic excitement.

The title of Spencer's posts spoils the ending; still, many of the details are interesting. I've made many of the same observations in this column. For example, Spencer writes, "Expect evangelicalism as a whole to look more and more like the pragmatic, therapeutic, church-growth-oriented megachurches that have defined success. The determination to follow in the methodological steps of numerically successful churches will be greater than ever. The result will be, in the main, a departure from doctrine to more and more emphasis on relevance, motivation and personal success." My only caveat here is to wonder if this is a future or present reality.

Finish here.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at March 12, 2009 | Comments (6) | TrackBack

March 10, 2009

Goodbye, Evangelicalism

by Brandon O'Brien

In the last 24 hours, USA Today and The Christian Science Monitor have both released less than cheery articles on the future of faith in America.

"The percentage of people who call themselves in some way Christian has dropped more than 11% in a generation," reports Cathy Lynn Grossman of USA Today. "The faithful have scattered out of their traditional bases: The Bible Belt is less Baptist. The Rust Belt is less Catholic. And everywhere, more people are exploring spiritual frontiers - or falling off the faith map completely."

The American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS) found that, "despite growth and immigration that has added nearly 50 million adults to the U.S. population, almost all religious denominations have lost ground since the first ARIS survey in 1990."

That means that religious people are not simply being redistributed from one religion or denomination to another, but that more and more people are abandoning all faith altogether.

According to ARIS findings, "So many Americans claim no religion at all (15%, up from 8% in 1990), that this category now outranks every other major U.S. religious group except Catholics and Baptists." (You can read the rest here.

Bleak news, perhaps. But not as bleak, or specific, as Michael Spencer's observations at The Christian Science Monitor. Spencer argues, "We are on the verge - within 10 years - of a major collapse of evangelical Christianity. This breakdown will follow the deterioration of the mainline Protestant world and it will fundamentally alter the religious and cultural environment in the West."

Spencer's predictions do not end with the fate of evangelicalism. He sees antagonistic political postures and declining public support of evangelical Christianity on the horizon. "This collapse will herald the arrival of an anti-Christian chapter of the post-Christian West," he writes. "Intolerance of Christianity will rise to levels many of us have not believed possible in our lifetimes, and public policy will become hostile toward evangelical Christianity, seeing it as the opponent of the common good."

According to Spencer, the result will be that "evangelicalism [will] look more like the pragmatic, therapeutic, church-growth oriented megachurches that have defined success."

Spencer may show his cards when he prophesies the hope for the church's future: "We can rejoice that in the ruins, new forms of Christian vitality and ministry will be born. I expect to see a vital and growing house church movement. This cannot help but be good for an evangelicalism that has made buildings, numbers, and paid staff its drugs for half a century." (Read the rest here.)

Together these articles raise interesting questions. Is the decline of religious adherence in the U.S. a sign of the death of evangelicalism? Or is it an opportunity for the gospel? From where you stand, do you see evangelical Christianity on course to certain demise, or is there hope for maintaining the movement in its current form? What needs to change? What must we preserve? Remember, keep it short and keep it civil.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at March 10, 2009 | Comments (45) | TrackBack

March 6, 2009

The Hansen Report: Suburban Church Slump?

by Collin Hansen

What if your city never recovers from the current economic crisis? What if your entire region enters an irreversible long-term decline? Richard Florida dares to declare the downturn's winners and losers in his March cover story for The Atlantic. In his essay "How the Crash Will Reshape America," Florida incorporates insight from his 2002 book, The Rise of the Creative Class.

Not surprising for anyone familiar with his earlier work, Florida believes that the big winners will be those burgeoning cities that have attracted a diverse class of sophisticated young professionals. So even though New York City has shed thousands of finance jobs, Florida believes the city's young talent will innovate and adapt. Detroit and other Rust Belt cities are unlikely to bounce back, even if the population loss is more like a slow bleed than a mass exodus.

But Florida doesn't just assess the economic effects on different regions of the country. He also observes how economic change will rearrange the relationship between cities, suburbs, and small towns. As I discussed last month, the brain drain in rural areas is making them a new mission field. Florida has little sympathy, because innovation depends on the best and brightest congregating together in dense, fast-paced cities. But Florida reserves his harshest analysis for the suburbs, the heartland of evangelical church growth in recent decades. He recommends that the federal government retract the tax incentives to homeownership that propelled suburban sprawl. In a post-industrial economy, Florida argues, the workforce cannot be tied down to mortgages. Mobility is the engine of competitive capitalism. In the megalopolis, Florida trusts.

"The world's 40 largest mega-regions, which are home to some 18 percent of the world's population, produce two-thirds of global economic output and nearly 9 in 10 new patented innovations," Florida notes.

There is cause for celebration and concern in Florida's analysis. On the one hand, evangelicals know how to accommodate new trends. When the suburbs started to sprawl, evangelicals built megachurches. When the American population shifted south and west, churches sprouted up in the desert. Yet cities are another matter. Since the massive immigration waves of the 1800s, cities have given evangelicals fits. High-profile exceptions only prove the rule that evangelicals prefer small towns and the suburbs. In Florida's estimation, the creative class thrives in cities with technology, talent, and tolerance. As commonly defined today, tolerance will frustrate anyone who subscribes to an authority higher than popular opinion. But if Florida is correct, evangelicals forsake the cities at the expense of gospel expansion. Besides, the changing mores even in suburbs and small towns testify to the growing influence of cities as culture shapers.

Thankfully, exceptions such as Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan provide evangelicals with models of faithful urban ministry. The challenge of bringing the gospel to the creative class will continue to attract some of the brightest young Christian leaders. They will be energized by Florida's vision of "a more concentrated geography, one that allows more people to mix more freely and interact more efficiently in a discrete number of dense, innovative mega-regions and creative cities." If Florida is correct about how innovation happens, then urban church planters and lay leaders rubbing shoulders will result in new ideas for reaching the city.

The same factors that stimulate innovation just might result in closer Christian community in cities than suburban residents have experienced. In the suburbs, large homes and the accompanying value of anonymity make meaningful relationships more difficult to come by. This challenge hinders both evangelism and fellowship. But the urban values of diversity and individuality don't give city churches the option of size over depth. Here, too, the new urban challenges invigorate a younger generation that recognizes the need for theological depth and close-knit community.

Yet for all of Florida's insight about economic development, he seems to misunderstand human nature. In his assessment, people are valuable merely for what they contribute. While they may enjoy the stimulating community of fellow culture creators, their motives and rewards are financial. He doesn't seem to account for the attraction to suburbs: low crime, good schools, and stable housing. He seems not to care why people will trade standard of living for quality of life in small towns. At their best, small town residents value every member of the community and come to one another's aid when needed. Indeed, this assurance survives any economic meltdown.

Nor does Florida understand the human cost of mobility. Economic vitality may rely on a fast-paced lifestyle of risk and reward. But the creative class of one generation gives way to the next when they burn out and seek refuge in the suburbs. Just ask city pastors. This is the problem they struggle to solve. Turnover gives urban churches wide national influence. Ironically, it also undermines local community. So the very bonds of fellowship that attract young people to urban churches in the first place eventually dissolve when members lose their resolve to stay in the city. As an economist, Florida doesn't propose to solve this problem. But before evangelicals get too excited about urban opportunities, they must.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at March 6, 2009 | Comments (7) | TrackBack

February 12, 2009

Video Ur: Shane Hipps at NPC

by Brandon O'Brien

We create media, and then media re-creates us. That's the message Shane Hipps, author of Flickering Pixels (Zondervan, 2009) wanted pastors at NPC to hear in his interview on the main stage last night and in his seminars this morning. Shane's latest book is a journey into the hidden power of media--and a challenge to the standard line that the message stays the same even when the medium changes.

Skye and I sat down with Shane today to ask him a couple of questions that are of particular interest on the blogosphere: how is Internet-based community different from flesh-and-blood Christian community? And what happens to the gospel when it's translated into a digital medium such as Second Life?

You can look forward to a review of Shane's book, Flickering Pixels, in the next issue of Leadership.

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

February 10, 2009

Live from NPC: Shane Claiborne

by Brandon O'Brien

Skye and I arrived in San Diego this afternoon for the 2009 National Pastors Convention.
Perhaps the most remarkable thing about the opening evening of headlining sessions was the variety.

The evening started with a short routine by acclaimed comedian Michael Jr. Michael is a young black performer from Grand Rapids, Michigan, who says he operates by a sort of "comedy accountability." Because he performs in bars, clubs, casinos, and even churches (Michael's a Christian), he says "everything I say in a club has to be clean enough to say from a church pulpit; everything I say in a pulpit has to be funny enough to say in a club." His material tonight drew from his experience becoming a Christian and encountering the Bible for the first time.

Next, Andy Crouch interviewed A. J. Jacobs, best-selling author of The Year of Living Biblically. Jacobs calls himself a "respectfully agnostic Jew," but his insights into the power of Scripture were really interesting. He decided that the best way to deal with the Bible was "just to dive in. You pretend to be a better person and eventually you become a little bit better person." That's not Christian theology, for sure. But he articulated a profound respect for the Bible and, what's more, for putting it into practice.

The main event this evening was Shane Claiborne, who spoke about the "new economic vision" that God gives his people in Scripture. An important first step to understand Scripture's economic vision is "learning to laugh in the face of things in the world [like money] that don't have real power." He spent most of his time unpacking Mark 10:29-30, by suggesting that, in God's economy, there is enough for everyone because no one has more than he needs. He quoted an early Christians who said that a person who has two coats when someone has none was considered a thief in the kingdom of God; when you give to the poor, you're simply giving back what has been stolen.

He argued that the "end of poverty was one of the signs of the birthday of the church," and that loving our neighbors is not an "act of distant charity" but a matter of entering into relationship with our needy neighbors. This great summary line came late in his talk: "The best thing to do with the best things in life is to give them away." Then he put his money where his mouth was. Shane cashed the honorarium check that NPC paid him for his sermon tonight into $1 bills. As he concluded, he had someone bring a bag of the dollar bills to him; then he scattered them on the floor and invited everyone to come take one "as a sign of God's jubilee."

I found it difficult to gauge the audience's response to Shane's presentation. They were quiet and subdued; not hostile by any means, but not enthusiastic. I think his message struck home. I, for one, found it deeply convicting.

Stay tuned for more from Skye and me live from NPC.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at February 10, 2009 | Comments (27) | TrackBack

February 3, 2009

The Hansen Report: Rural Exodus

by Collin Hansen

Time traveled to the frozen Midwest to report the obvious: Rural communities struggle to recruit trained pastors. The dateline could have read 1979 and the story would not have looked altogether different. The situation has certainly worsened in the last 30 years, but the problem's origins date back at least that long.

Plagued by severe "brain drain," rural American towns have been grasping for ways to entice doctors and motivated teachers to return and settle. According to Time, pastors may be even less inclined to serve small towns than their college-educated counterparts.

"The ticktock of farm auctions and foreclosures in the heartland, punctuated by the occasional suicide, has seldom let up since the 1980s," Time reporter David Van Biema wrote. "But one of the malaise's most excruciating aspects is regularly overlooked: rural pastors are disappearing even faster than the general population, leaving graying congregations helpless in their time of greatest need."

Van Biema cites Fund for Theological Education president Trace Haythorn, who says not even half of rural congregations are led by a seminary-trained pastor who works for them full-time. The other half of churches make due with lay leaders or a pastor who did not attend graduate school. Many share a pastor with one or more other churches. Even $35,000, the average starting salary for seminary graduates, overburdens churches whose members depend on Social Security checks.

But it's not like you can find a huge pool of pastors dying to serve in rural churches who can't land a paying gig. It takes guts to seek out a rural placement after seminary when your classmates have dreams of planting urban churches. Shannon Jung tells Van Biema, "A town without a Starbucks scares [young pastors]." There may be some discomfort with forsaking suburban amenities. A bigger problem is peer support. For decades, bright young minds have been fleeing small towns and the Midwest in particular. You know the Midwest is struggling when even its cities earn recognition as the places where notoriously restless Americans are least inclined to move. If Minneapolis, Kansas City, Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Detroit can't entice young professionals, what success will their rural dependents find? It's lonely on the range for pastors who want to discuss Calvin. Such fantasies belong to the 1950s and Marilynne Robinson novels.

If there were easy answers to this crisis, someone would have solved it by now. It's not like rural churches have surrendered to their fate. One of my friends pastors a rural Evangelical Free Church formed by the merger of Baptist and Presbyterian congregations. The fight for survival brings certain theological differences into perspective. It would be easy to blame the seminaries and Christian colleges for escalating tuition costs. Maybe if pastors graduated without debt they would take less than $35,000 and settle down in towns where that kind of money can go a long way. But many Christian schools are based in suburban or urban areas with costly standards of living. And professors need to pay down their own education debt.

It would also be easy for congregations to decide that graduate education is overrated. There is already tremendous pressure on overstretched pastors in some rural churches to spend the bulk of their time visiting members rather than preparing to preach. You don't need to attend seminary to develop bedside manner. But remembering Paul's charge to Timothy (2 Tim. 4:2), we recognize the centrality of the preaching role for pastoral ministry. And seminary is where many pastors develop these invaluable skills. Perhaps congregations can become more proactive in encouraging and identifying candidates for full-time ministry. Supporting them through seminary may be costly in the short term but would pay lasting dividends when they return to serve the congregations that reared them.

Of course, such an option is impossible if the town's youth population has been depleted. In these areas the church feels an acute need to seek the community's welfare (Jer. 29:7). In the meantime, perhaps some suburban pastors will develop a missionary mindset toward rural America. Like missionaries, these pastors may be lonely and underpaid. But they will also abound in spiritual rewards, including the eternal appreciation of Christians who may not have otherwise heard God's Word proclaimed.

They might even begin to enjoy rural America. They won't be spending all their time administering programs such as those that engulf many suburban pastors. They might even find the small community strangely willing to incorporate a young pastor's fresh ideas if they are tactfully implemented. And a pastor working in rural America can always count on church members willing to serve beyond the constraints of time and ability. Starbucks or not, that's the kind of gig that God could use to cure a pastor's soul.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at February 3, 2009 | Comments (27) | TrackBack

December 5, 2008

Defining "Missional"

Everyone's debating what exactly being "missional" means. There are a number of really interesting articles floating around the web on the subject, and Alan Hirsch includes his definition in the latest issue of Leadership. Here's Michael Frost (co-author of The Shaping of Things to Come and ReJesus with Alan Hirsch) with his definition:

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at December 5, 2008 | Comments (11) | TrackBack

December 2, 2008

Dan Kimball's Missional Misgivings

I hope I am wrong. For the past few years, I have been observing, listening, and asking questions about the missional movement. I have a suspicion that the missional model has not yet proven itself beyond the level of theory. Again, I hope I am wrong.

We all agree with the theory of being a community of God that defines and organizes itself around the purpose of being an agent of God's mission in the world. But the missional conversation often goes a step further by dismissing the "attractional" model of church as ineffective. Some say that creating better programs, preaching, and worship services so people "come to us" isn't going to cut it anymore. But here's my dilemma - I see no evidence to verify this claim.

Not long ago I was on a panel with other church leaders in a large city. One missional advocate in the group stated that younger people in the city will not be drawn to larger, attractional churches dominated by preaching and music. What this leader failed to recognize, however, was that young people were coming to an architecturally cool megachurch in the city - in droves. Its worship services drew thousands with pop/rock music and solid preaching. The church estimates half the young people were not Christians before attending.

Conversely, some from our staff recently visited a self-described missional church. It was 35 people. That alone is not a problem. But the church had been missional for ten years, and it hadn't grown, multiplied, or planted any other churches in a city of several million people. That was a problem.

Another outspoken advocate of the house church model sees it as more missional and congruent with the early church. But his church has the same problem. After fifteen years it hasn't multiplied. It's a wonderful community that serves the homeless, but there's no evidence of non-Christians beginning to follow Jesus. In the same city several megachurches are seeing conversions and disciples matured.

I realize missional evangelism takes a long time, and these churches are often working in difficult soil. We can't expect growth overnight.

But given their unproven track records, these missional churches should be slow to criticize the attractional churches that are making a measurable impact. No, I am not a numbers person. I am not enamored by how many come forward at an altar call. In fact, I am a bit skeptical. But I am passionate about Jesus-centered disciples being made. And surprisingly, I find in many large, attractional churches, they are.

Yes, people are attracted by the music, preaching, or children's programs, but there may be more to these large churches than simply the programming. There are also people being the body of Christ in their communities. When these disciples build relationships with non-Christians, the evidence of the Spirit in their lives is attractive. The existence of programs and buildings does not mean mature disciples are not a significant reason why these churches grow.

There are so many who don't understand the joy of Kingdom living here on earth and the future joy of eternal life. This joy motivates me missionally, but I also cannot forget the horrors of hell. This creates a sense of urgency in me that pushes me past missional theory to see what God is actually doing in churches - large and small, attractional and missional. Where are disciples actually being grown? What is actually working?

I hope there are examples of fruitful missional churches that I haven't encountered yet. I hope my perception based on my interaction with the missional movement is wrong. But for now, I would rather be part of a Christ-centered megachurch full of programs where people are coming to know Jesus as Savior, than part of a church of any size where they are not.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at December 2, 2008 | Comments (57) | TrackBack

August 11, 2008

Cartoon: Addressing Real Needs

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

July 25, 2008

The First Church of Second Life

by Angie Ward

There is another life beyond this one: a realm where one's role on earth is a distant memory, where inhabitants have new bodies and can fly anywhere they like. It sounds a bit like heaven. But it's not. It's cyberspace.

Second Life is - well, for the uninitiated, it is hard to explain. Some call it a game, but in reality it is ultimate virtuality: a virtual, 3D, online world that is continually created and updated by its residents. Originally introduced to the public in 2003 by the company Linden Lab, Second Life now boasts over a million members from around the world.

These members, 50,000 or more of whom are online and "in-world" at any given time, create their own names and "avatars" (virtual identities with infinite combinations of customizable human and nonhuman "looks") that can own merchandise and property (bought with real U.S. dollars) and interact with any anyone else in-world via Second Life chat or instant messenger. Residents can walk, fly, or teleport to various destinations, including lush beaches, raucous dance clubs, trendy restaurants, seedy strip joints, bustling malls - and churches.

As of this writing, there were around 100 churches listed in Second Life. Some were obviously created as a joke (The Church of Apathy), but dozens of others advertise legitimate doctrine, membership, and church functions. But why would anyone start a church in a place that isn't real?

Because, for many of its residents, Second Life is real; more real - to them, at least - than their real-world existences. Some members spend entire days in-world at one time; they make friends, go to school, party, play, and sometimes even derive more income from their virtual enterprises than from their real-world ones. This is either cause for great alarm, or great opportunity for ministry.

Second Life resident "Emmanuel Hallard" believes the latter, and started the Christian Church of Second Life two and half years ago. "I felt that Jesus' saying, ?Go into all the world' included Second Life," explained Hallard, who in his "First Life" is Lee Wilson, a minister, author, and actor who works for the Family Dynamics Institute, a nonprofit marriage and family ministry located outside of Nashville.

Wilson/Hallard chose his Second Life first name, Emmanuel, because it means "God with us." "When I first joined Second Life I wanted that message to go with me - that God is everywhere," he said. "We can't hide from Him in the dark, in a voting booth, or in a virtual world." The Nashville minister says he spends around 10 hours per week in Second Life, communicating with his church's 1,000 members, developing the church "property," leading Bible discussions, talking with church visitors, and exploring new areas of the world. The church also has a donation box and accepts gifts that go toward the purchase of new property and the Second Life land ownership fee of $30 per month.

Other Second Life churches function in a similar manner, offering Bible studies and discussion groups. Some hold special events based on the liturgical calendar, such as Easter gatherings and special prayer services.

"Second Life in general lets you experience freedom you might not have in your everyday life," explained Wilson/Hallard.

And the freedom to be and do anything you want in-world is a two-edged sword. "Slappy Yering," another Christian who has spent significant time in Second Life, has observed the darker side of this freedom.

Yering, a church planter and telecom employee in his First Life, used to spend 8 to 16 hours per week in Second Life. He originally joined to get closer to a couple in his church that was very quiet in real life, but spent a lot of time in-world. "In the game they were just crazy," Yering explained. "The couple worked at a virtual strip club. He was a DJ and she was a dancer, and they owned a house in-world. Most of the time I was there, we were talking about life. I was a counselor to these people who had trouble dealing with each other in the real world.

"It was kind of a fun thing," Yering continued "You could be whoever you wanted and do whatever you wanted - no responsibility, because it's just a game. But that's the dangerous part. It crossed a line. The couple eventually divorced. They should really have never been married in the first place, but the game accelerated their downfall."

So, what is Second Life? A colossal time waster, a harmless (albeit elaborate) diversion, or evil escapism? From my own experience, the Second Life world is difficult to learn, yet potentially addicting. The virtual world is completely unreal, yet totally real at the same time. Dangers lurk, yet opportunities abound. What is the appropriate approach for a Christian? On the one hand, Scripture warns us of spending time in futile pursuits; on the other, we are to spread the Gospel to the unreached, using whatever means possible.

Personally, I am too busy in my First Life to spend time in Second Life. But I commend those who are thinking outside the box about how to engage a vast, unevangelized world that is actually contained inside a box.

For a brief glimpse of a Second Life church experience, check out this video, produced by Craig Groeschel's LifeChurch.tv.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at July 25, 2008 | Comments (21) | TrackBack

July 11, 2008

Felt-Needs and Messianic Marketing

Conventional ministry wisdom goes something like this: When launching a new church, first analyze the felt-needs within the target area or population. Then construct ministries to address those felt-needs. Felt-needs based ministries will draw people to your church, and simultaneously positively predispose seekers to the gospel message. In this scenario, caring for peoples' felt-needs plays a supporting role in the mission.

What if this conventional wisdom is wrong?

The idea outlined above is what I was taught in seminary, it's what I read frequently in ministry books, and it's what I see practiced virtually everywhere I go. But I increasingly suspect that the theological foundation for felt-needs based ministry may be sand rather than stone.

The biblical rationale comes primarily from the gospels. Jesus, it is thought, performed miracles in order to confirm the content of his preaching. His "acts of power" (the word "miracle" is rarely used in the Greek-language gospels) function as validation for his verbal proclamation. In other words, you should believe what Jesus says because look at what he can do.

Translating this principle into contemporary ministry, we are told that identifying and satisfying felt-needs will confirm and validate the gospel we preach - and hopefully draw a crowd the way Jesus' miracles did. But there are a few problems with this understanding.

1. If his miracles play the supporting role of validating his message, one would expect to see Jesus performing miracles in conjunction with teaching. But this is rarely the case. There are some exceptions, but for the most part the gospel accounts of Jesus' miracles do not include teaching. Most of the gospel writers separate sections of dialogue and teaching from stories of miracles.

2. If the miracles were to validate his message, why does Jesus frequently command people not to report the miracles he has performed? Some argue Jesus was trying to postpone the discovery of his identity until the appointed time. That may be true, but the secrecy undermines the notion that his acts of power are to confirm his proclamations.

Theologian N.T. Wright, among others, has suggested a different way of understanding Jesus' miracles. Rather than supporting his preaching, Jesus' acts of power should be seen as accomplishing the same thing as his preaching - namely, restoring exiled sinners to God. Wright:

Most if not all of the works of healing, which form the bulk of Jesus' mighty works, could be seen as the restoration of membership in Israel of those who, through sickness or whatever, had been excluded as ritually unclean. The healings thus function in exact parallel with the welcome of sinners (Jesus and the Victory of God, p. 191).

If theologians like Wright are correct, and Jesus didn't address felt-needs to win a hearing or confirm his message, then how and why we address felt-needs in our present ministries needs to be reconsidered. For example, if Jesus' healed blind Bartimaeus and the bleeding woman not to win their approval or validate his teaching, but rather to restore them to full communion with God and his people (something their handicaps prevented), then our good works need to be more than smart PR or marketing. They too must have some intrinsic gospel validity - a worthiness beyond validating our verbal proclamation.

Similarly, no one doubts that Bartimaeus or the bleeding woman had legitimate felt-needs. But in our context what some may interpret as a felt-need may actually be a felt-want. If surveys show that people in my community really want an after school sports program, should my church create one? Why not a day spa or car detailing service? Who defines what is a legitimate felt-need? If we believe acts of service exist to validate or incentivize our message, then anything our audience deems valuable will do.

Jesus appears more discerning. He healed people with ailments or handicaps that excluded them from Israel or the worship of Israel's God. And when people requested miracles outside these parameters, he refused to perform (see Matthew 16:1-4). As Wright observes, "[Jesus] never performed mighty works simply to impress."

Does this mean we shouldn't love our neighbors, seek justice for the oppressed, or let our light shine before men? Of course not. Many of the outreach activities practiced by churches (liking handing out bottled water at summer events, a growing trend in my area) may be acts of kindness that help improve the public perception of Christians - and heaven knows we need that. But we shouldn't equate what is essentially marketing with Jesus' mighty works.

Contradicting the gospel message is another danger of a hyper-felt-needs based approach to outreach. The gospel calls us to surrender our desires, take up our cross, and follow Christ. How can a church effectively invite people to "die to self" while constantly appealing to their self-interests? Whereas Jesus' miracles of restoration were completely in sync with his message, our acts of service - particularly in an affluent, consumer culture - run the risk of undermining our message of personal sacrifice by promoting the satifaction of felt-needs/wants.

I don't pretend to have covered every aspect of this issue. With just 800 words, one can only hope to scratch the surface of a tremendously complex topic, but I hope my thoughts and questions ignite your own.

Share this:

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at July 11, 2008 | Comments (14) | TrackBack

June 26, 2008

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

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

To download this episode of Audio Ur, click here.

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

June 4, 2008

Audio Ur: Alan Hirsch Defines "Missional"

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

To download this episode of Audio Ur, click here.

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

June 3, 2008

Driscoll: Emerging Churches "Don't Have Converts"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share this:

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

April 11, 2008

Live from Shift: Bursting the Christian Bubble

The final session of Shift 2008 featured Dan Kimball, pastor of Vintage Faith Church in Santa Cruz, California, and regular contributor to Leadership and Out of Ur. Kimball shared some insights from this book, They Like Jesus But Not the Church.

He began with the good news - our culture is very interested in Jesus. He pulled a number of items from a bag: a Jesus bobble head figure, Jesus band-aids, a Jesus eraser, and then showed images from a Madonna concert where the queen of pop hung on a cross with scripture verses above to highlight the 12 million kids dying from Aids in Africa. Kimball says there is no doubt that people in our culture are curious about Jesus - and many find him very attractive.

Now the bad news - popular perceptions of the church and Christians are very different. Kimball showed a video of college students in his town describing Christians as judgmental, homophobic, and hypocritical. He humorously recounted the response of a girl at the health club when she discovered Dan was a pastor. She said, "Pastors are creepy" but admitted she didn't know any personally.

This, says Kimball, is precisely the problem. In an increasingly post-Christian culture fewer people have contact with real Christians. We've hidden ourselves in a Christian sub-culture bubble. As a result only "the loudest voices are defining who we are," he says. These loud and usually angry Christians are the only ones heard and seen by the culture. This is what people have based their opinions of Christians upon.

Kimball says the solution is getting outside the bubble again; obeying Jesus' prayer for his people to not be taken out of the world (John 17:15). Only when we have real contact with people in the culture where love and friendship can be established will we change their perceptions of the church.

Dan recounted a great story from his time hanging out with the girl who cut his hair. While he was attending a ministry conference in Texas, she'd invited him to a bar to meet her friends in a band. The band turned out to be "Satan's Cheerleaders." Also in attendance was the Lizard Man - famous for having his whole body tattooed to resemble a lizard. Because of his friendship with the hairdresser, Dan was able to engage the group in a conversation about faith. Later he walked out of the bar with Satan's Cheerleaders and the Lizard Man just as the ministry conference attendees were exiting across the way.

He ended with good news. "Most Christians and churches are not what the perceptions are," said Kimball. We aren't as judgmental, homophobic, or hypocritical as people think we are. We simply need to show them by getting outside our bubbles and reengage the culture.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at April 11, 2008 | Comments (14)

April 10, 2008

Live from Shift: Deep Justice vs. Shallow Service

Kara Powell spoke during the final session at Shift this afternoon. Powell is the director of the Center for Youth and Family Ministry at Fuller Theological Seminary. She began by bursting a pretty big bubble. Many churches have gotten involved in short term missions trips (STMs) that often involve a service project in a developing country. But are these trips making any real difference?

The research isn't encouraging. Powell shared about how those being served by North American church groups often feel demoralized by our service, and how many wished these churches would simply send the funds so they could do the work themselves. On the flip side, evidence suggests these trips are having a minimal impact on students as well. In an article she wrote called "If We Send Them, Will They Grow?" she concluded that students who go on STMs are not more likely to become long-term missionaries, and it doesn't impact their materialistic lifestyles.

Powell said a lot of our local and international efforts toward the poor are really a placebo effect. They make us feel better about ourselves, but they're not really impacting people the way we'd like to believe. What's the answer? She believes we need to shift from shallow service to "deep justice."

After tracing the importance of justice as a theme in the Old and New Testaments she laid out the difference between serving the poor and seeking justice. "Service is giving someone a glass of cold water who needs it. Justice is asking why the person needs a glass of cold water." Service is good, she says, because it addresses real needs. But seeking justice means fixing the system that created the problem in the first place.

Our churches tend to approach service as an event - buying gifts for poor kids at Christmas, feeding the homeless, going to Mexico to build a house. Again, these are worthwhile things. But justice isn't an event, it's a lifestyle. She defined justice as simply "righting wrongs." Toward this end students at her church are engaging issues like sex trafficking, HIV/Aids, and modern-day slavery.

Powell's talk was very piercing. Is your church forming people to merely serve, or to be a people of justice? My sense is that if we pursue the goal of "deep justice" we may see an awakening in many evangelical churches. But if it remains simply events of service then social justice will be just the latest trend that will pass out of popularity like WWJD bracelets.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at April 10, 2008 | Comments (7)

Live from Shift: Ministry 2.0 in World 2.0

Darren Whitehead leads the student ministry of Willow Creek. He compared the church in our changing culture to his own experience as an immigrant (he's from Australia). Most immigrants suffer from "cultural freeze," he says. This is the tendency to maintain their old culture in the midst of the new one they find themselves in.

He says the church is doing the same thing. We're preserving church from the 1960s in a world that changing. He says this is really uncomfortable for newcomers. When someone comes into the church "it's sort of like walking in on two people making out. It's intimate and you feel kind of strange being there."

This has led to what Whitehead called an "epidemic of ineffectiveness." He cited numerous studies that all show huge numbers of students leaving the church after high school and never returning. He says, "The rate of change in the culture is far exceeding the rate of change in our youth ministries."

Technology is changing the world and the culture. Whitehead referred to Time Magazine's observation that we are seeing the emergence of version 2.0 of the internet through user-focused sites like Wikipedia, Youtube, and Facebook. This means students are growing up in World 2.0 where "consumers are now content providers." This has led to five critical shifts in the way Willow is approaching youth ministry. These five ideas may well apply across the board.

1. Moving from passive to interactive
In the new World 2.0 people are creating content. As Whitehead says, in the past people were interested in how professional your ministry was. But today, "Any 14 year old with a Mac can produce really slick videos." As a result students "don't want professional, they want personal." This should be good news for smaller churches without a big staff or budget. It means getting the people involved in creating the music, videos, and other content of the ministry. Whitehead says "students are no longer attending our ministry, they are our ministry."

2. Moving from resolved to unresolved
The new generation isn't looking for easy answers. They are even insulted by trite answers to difficult issues. This means they "are trying to be tour guides rather than travel agents." Whitehead says they're trying to walk along side of students rather than simply telling them what to think. He wants them wrestling with questions not just absorbing answers.

3. Moving from imitation to imagination
Whitehead says that for years we've been trying to clone students. We've shown them what we think it looks like to follow Jesus, and we're not giving them space to imagine how it might look for them. Part of this has contributed to making "young people spiritually dependent on us." This is why they fall way when the leave the high school ministry. Instead, says Whitehead, we need to be teaching people to be "self-feeders."

4. Moving from informational to experiential
Darren admitted this isn't exactly a new idea. Most of us are wrestling with how to be creative and engaging for those who have a variety of learning styles. Some things they've done: talking about vision with 3-D glasses, cooking food on stage to illustrate the aroma of Christ, and an experience of walking to the cross blindfolded.

5. Moving from confession to compassion
Finally, Whitehead says that young people aren't interested in merely telling (confessing) what they believe. They've become activists. Toward that end they've made James 1:27 (you know, true religion is caring for orphans and widows) their ministry's theme this year. They are partnering with local and international ministries to engage their students in compassion projects for single mothers and students in Africa. He wants students to realize that "following Jesus isn't just a belief system - it's something you do."

One of the biggest challenges that student leaders face comes from the home. Whitehead says these kids go home and see that their "mom and dad don't live differently than anyone else." The students are hungry to be challenged, but the lukewarm faith of their families is a problem. "We got to be sure that we don't under challenge them."

How are you seeing these five shifts occurring in your churches? Which ones seem to be universally applicable? As Whitehead articulated - this isn't just a youth issue, it's the direction our whole culture is moving.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at April 10, 2008 | Comments (2)

April 8, 2008

Coffee with a Cause

I'm sitting at Ebenezer's - a coffee shop in Washington DC. That may not seem particularly remarkable, but this trendy meeting place represents the convergence of three social pillars - government, business, and church.

Ebenezer's is owned and operated by National Community Church. Often referred to as "The Theater Church," NCC meets at theaters located at three Metro stops around Washington. But the coffee shop serves as the church's headquarters. The upper floors are occupied by NCC's staff offices, and the basement of Ebenezer's is a multi-media venue where worship services are conducted as well as concerts.

The connection between the coffee shop and the church represents a growing trend of churches advancing their mission through for-profit businesses. Ebenezer's has been very successful for National Community Church. The business is thriving; it was even ranked among the city's best coffee shops. (Right now the place is quite busy.)

Mark Batterson, pastor of NCC, said the experiment with Ebenezer's has been so positive that they're considering expanding to other locations and even franchising the operation to help other churches launch coffee shops to function as "3rd places" and missional outposts.

I can tell you first hand - Ebenezer's is a nice place. I can't vouch for the coffee (I don't drink the poison), but the tea is very good quality. But here's the question - should churches be getting into business? What are the advantages and disadvantages of mixing Christian community with commerce? How would you feel if your church moved in this direction?

Some believe that spending $2 million on a coffee shop that is utilized all week and naturally attracts non-Christians, is far more missional than spending the same amount on a worship building that's primarily used on Sunday for believers. Are they right? Am I sitting in the future of the American church?

Here's the other fascinating thing about Ebenezer's - it's located four blocks from the Capital building. National Community Church is populated primarily by young government staffers from both sides of the aisle. And the coffee shop draws many political appointees. You can't find a more politically charged environment than this. If I had any hair I'm sure it would be standing on end.

I spent the last few hours talking with Mark Batterson about leading a church in this environment. (You can expect to read about that conversation in the summer issue of Leadership.) For now I'll just leave you with this question: how would you feel if a highly visible and polarizing politician started attending your church?

My short time in Washington has been very interesting, and I've come away with more questions about ministry and politics than I anticipated. So far I've only concluded one thing: whether Republican or Democrat, conservative or liberal, theocrat or secularist - everyone likes a good coffee shop. That may be NCC and Ebenezer's winning strategy.

Posted by Skye Jethani at April 8, 2008 | Comments (5)

February 1, 2008

McChurch: I'm Lovin' It

"Church plants," "sister churches," and "satellite congregations" may be a thing of the past. In 2008, the language of missiology is changing, so look for "church franchises" in your town.

Eddie Johnson, the lead pastor of Cumberland Church, espouses the franchising concept when it comes to the relationship between his church in Nashville, Tennessee, and North Point Community Church in metro Atlanta. On his blog, he states, "Just like a Chick-fil-A, my church is a 'franchise,' and I proudly serve as the local owner/operator."

According to Johnson, his job is to "establish a local, autonomous church that has the same beliefs, values, mission, and strategy as North Point." He completed a three-month internship at North Point and continues to receive training and support. He claims to rarely deviate from the "training manual."

"Just like that Chick-fil-A owner/operator," he says, "I'm here in Nashville to open up our franchise and run it right. I believe in my company and what they are trying to 'sell.'"

The pastor says people who are already familiar with the North Point "brand" will find a local congregation with the same fit. For those who have relocated from Atlanta, they'll get a taste of home and know what to expect in their new church.

According to Johnson's website, the "Strategic Partnership Churches" exist in such diverse locations as Florida, Pennsylvania, and Colorado. And by 2010, North Point plans to plant 60 new churches.

Is this the future of the Western church- franchised congregations of megabrands in every city with pastors serving as the local owner/operator? Many of us have seen this coming, but it's rather shocking to see the model and language of the franchised church so enthusiastically embraced as it is by Eddie Johnson.

What do you think? Are Cumberland Church and other franchised congregations the wave of the future? Are Chick-fil-A and McDonalds the right model for the church to be emulating? Are franchised mega-churches going to be the denominations of the 21st century? Or, is this consumer Christianity taken to its logical and disturbing extreme?

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at February 1, 2008 | Comments (79)

October 26, 2007

Willow Creek Repents? (Part 2)

Last week's post about Willow Creek sparked a lot of conversation. It all flowed from comments made by the church's leaders following a three year self-evaluation of Willow Creek's ministry effectiveness. Your comments caught the attention of Greg Hawkins, Willow's executive pastor. Below Hawkins reponds to your thoughts, clarifies what Willow has learned, and discusses the church's future.

Friends,

I'm thrilled to see the high level of interest and energy behind the blogosphere comments about REVEAL. But I've read enough postings to think that it might be helpful to provide a few facts on three issues that keep coming up. Trust me. I'm not into "spin control" here. I just want to fill in some gaps.

1. It's Not About Willow
? REVEAL's findings are based on thirty churches besides Willow. In all thirty churches, we've found the six segments of REVEAL's spiritual continuum, including the Stalled and Dissatisfied segments. And these churches aren't all Willow clones. We've surveyed traditional Bible churches, mainline denominations, African-American churches and churches representing a wide range of geographies and sizes. Right now we're fielding the survey to 500 additional churches, including 100 international churches. So, while REVEAL was born out of a Willow research project in 2004, the findings are not exclusive to Willow Creek.

2. Willow Repents?
? The first blog started with this question, and the answer is "yes". But repenting is not a new experience for us. We've made a number of major course corrections over the years ? like adding a big small group ministry for the thousands of new Christians coming to faith at Willow, and adding a mid-week service for our Christ-followers. We've always been a church in motion and REVEAL is just another example of Willow trying to be open to God's design for this local church.

3. Is Willow Re-thinking its Seeker Focus?
? Simple answer ? no. My boss would say that Willow is not just seeker-focused. We are seeker-obsessed. The power of REVEAL's insights for our seeker strategy is the evangelistic strength uncovered in the more mature segments. If we can serve them better, the evangelistic potential is enormous, based on our findings.

I hope this was helpful. In any event, I'm enjoying following the dialogue. Keep it up! And let me know if you have any questions you'd like me to address.

Greg Hawkins

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at October 26, 2007 | Comments (55)

September 14, 2007

Don't Change Your Church!

In part one of our interview with Dan Kimball he talked about the intersection of the emerging church with missional theology. Simply changing the church's worship style isn't enough, he says. Becoming truly missional requires "an ecclesiological change." In part two, Kimball address the role aging congregations can play in helping to reach the younger generation. And, once again, the answer is more about having a missional mindset rather than a cutting edge worship style.

You've been at this conference for a couple of days now. Are you sensing that leaders are asking the deeper philosophical questions? What kind of questions are you hearing? It's been refreshing to see the interest in the future of the church by mostly middle aged and older pastors. They are really concerned about younger people. It's refreshing and very sincere. I think this is happening because churches recognize younger people are disappearing. A woman talked to me just this morning about her daughter disconnecting from the church. She was very emotional. She wanted to know what her church could possibly do. So the refreshing part is seeing real passion from leaders saying we must do something. And the sad part is I suspect existing churches won't be willing or able to make the necessary changes. I really, really hope they can. But it will take a sense of humility and passion.

And what do you say to people when they are looking to you for the answer?
This sounds clich?, but there isn't a single answer. So much depends on the church.

So much depends on the history of the specific church. So much depends on who is in the leadership of the church. So much depends on the skill sets of the existing leaders. So much depends on the church's culture, and who is part of the church and who lives in the community around the church. Sometimes a church shouldn't do anything because they are doing exactly what they are supposed to be doing for the people God has given them to shepherd and lead and reach.

This is a true story. A guy read The Emerging Church, and a year later he saw me. He said, "Dan, It's just not working." And I said, "What are you doing?" He said, "I got some art stuff, and we are doing multi-sensory worship. And I'm having people come up and paint. But the younger people aren't coming in." I asked him, "What is your church is like." He said it was about twenty-five elderly people. My heart broke listening to him share what happened. He convinced this group of elderly people they need to worship differently. They even changed the name of their church. He thought changing the worship gathering and having twenty-five elderly people do art in worship would bring in the younger people. His sincerity almost made me want to cry. We talked about his situation and I encouraged him to just shepherd the existing group of people in a way that makes sense to them and they can relate to.

So, not every leader needs to radically change their church.
No, because God may have their church a certain way intentionally. We need different kinds of churches in every city. Everyone doesn't need to change their style to reflect what we are doing. What does need to change, however, is the development of an outward missional heart - no matter what kind or type of a church you are. But being missional will look different depending on your location, who the leaders are, what the people of the church are like, etc. You can have a very missional church of primarily elderly people or you can have a very non-missional church of twenty-somethings.

It's hard for churches that are growing older to face the future. Maybe for some older congregations the answer is partnering with a younger church plant. We are doing that with our church. We've partnered with an aging church and we share their facilities. We are really joining together. It has its difficulties, but because it is missionally motivated it is extremely rewarding. But what makes it possible is that the older church has a missional mindset.

Dan Kimball is pastor of Vintage Faith Church in Santa Cruz, California, and author of They Like Jesus but Not the Church (Zondervan, 2007). A review of his book can be found in the summer issue of Leadership.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at September 14, 2007 | Comments (11)

September 11, 2007

Alien Nation

We are putting the finishing touches on the next issue of Leadership built around the theme of ministering to people on the margins. Isaac Canales, pastor of Mission Ebenezer Family Church in Carson, California, has sent us this provocative article about ministry among immigrants. We're posting it here first to hear your responses. Some of your comments may be republished with Canales' article in the October issue of Leadership.

I am a Harvard graduate and the son of immigrants. My story is not unique. In California, where I live, immigration has been an issue for decades. We've lived with it every day of our lives, long before it became a divisive political issue. In California, even our governor is an immigrant. But most immigrants here are not from Austria. Most, like my parents, came from Mexico.

Today's debate over "illegal aliens" is not new, but perhaps a bit of historical perspective will be helpful.

My mother was kidnapped by her father when she was four. He told his mother-in-law that he was taking his daughter to the market to buy her shoes. He never returned. Instead he brought my mother to Bakersfield, California, where he supported her by picking grapes, cotton, and fruit. Eventually, he became a naturalized American citizen and was proud of it. He bought a house with white columns and a wide porch. That is where mama grew up.

My father came across the Rio Grande and was an orphan by age eleven. He wandered from family to family, boarding house to boarding house. Freight train cars were his home for many years. At age 27 Papa experienced a powerful conversion and later attended the Latin American Bible Institute in Southern California. But before entering the school, he received a call from Uncle Sam.

Despite being an immigrant, completely undocumented and without naturalization papers, he was sent to fight in World War II. The Bible school sent Papa his first year's books to study while overseas. I still have them. My father glued them all together with egg whites into one big volume as he carried it to England, France, Belgium, North Africa, and then back home. Toward the end of the war, my father became an American citizen with hundreds of other soldiers in a massive swearing-in ceremony. He was always proud of his service in the army.

My father and mother entered the gospel ministry together. When I was a child, they founded two churches including the one I pastor today in Carson, California - Mission Ebenezer Family Church. Many of our members are immigrants. In the beginning they were largely Mexican. Now we see 2nd, 3rd, and even 4th generation El Salvadorian, Guatemalan, Columbian, Peruvian, and other nationalities represented.

My heart is thrilled as they share their testimonies of how God brought them to the United States in a car trunk, under a truck chassis, walking, swimming, or through tunnels. Many risked death walking through the desert. But they all came with God's help and with ours. I do not believe we are being politically defiant by helping them to the land of promise. This is our religious experience. The stories of faith they share make God real, and our mercy right.

In 1983, I was recently ordained, and our church was very small - just 23 people meeting in a tavern. One of our members, Sister Benny, would often disappear for a weekend to perform a secret ministry.

Benny was a Christian Coyote. A coyote usually charges immigrants a fee to bring them over the border and avoid immigration agents, but Benny did not charge. It was her way of serving the Lord. And she only transported babies that had been separated from their families in California.

Benny also had a practical reason for only transporting infants. She was a large woman, at least 380 pounds and only 5 feet tall. She always wore very large comfortable Hawaiian muumuus - red with white hibiscus, or pink with green palm trees and pineapples. Border agents never noticed the baby moving underneath. She brought many children across this way, under her dress or between her legs.

Benny, with the help of her husband Julio, reunited one family that was staying in my garage. The parents, Paz and Jorge, paid a coyote $2,000 to bring them and their older son across the border, but they had to leave their baby behind with his grandparents. So Benny retrieved their two-year-old from Mexico.

Of course, her ministry was not an officially recognized program of the church, but we were excited when she brought back Paz and Jorge's little boy. They pulled up to our house around 1:00 a.m. We woke our three boys. Paz and Jorge were waiting with us curbside. It was a wonderful time of prayer and thanksgiving to the Lord for bringing this family back together.

Nico and Chayo came to America from Oaxaca, Mexico. The elderly couple invited us over for dinner. They lived in a small one-room apartment divided by a wire draped with sheets clipped together with clothespins. This provided some privacy, parents on one side of the sheets, kids on the other. Ten people lived in one room. They were so excited to have us in their home.

We sat on their only two chairs. They stood as they proudly served us. They had a hot plate with two small burners. One had a little pot of coffee. The other burner had some corn tortillas. Little black blisters showed that the tortillas were ready. The dinner was very simple and served humbly and with love.

Nico took his sweaty work hat off and asked me if I would like to say grace. I said no. I wanted to hear him try a prayer since he had just recently given his heart to Christ. He prayed thoughtfully, carefully, and sincerely. Then they served us a small plate of the most wonderful beans, fried in bacon fat, and crispy hot corn tortillas with a cup of steaming coffee. That was all.

I remember thinking to myself, "Is this why you trained at Harvard?" The answer was a resounding, "Yes."

I remembered what Jesus said, "Wherever two or three are gathered in my name, there I am in their midst." Jesus wasn't on the tortilla. But he was there in that sheet-draped apartment.

Nico and Chayo were illiterate. They signed the membership rolls at the church, proudly, with an X. I bought Chayo a New Testament on cassette, in Spanish. She memorized many passages. It was thrilling to watch her stand up during our testimony time and see her wince with bashfulness, smile shyly, close her eyes, and say a Bible verse. Chayo and Nico were faithful to the end. They're both in heaven now.

My years of ministry to immigrants has taught me many things, and has given me insight into many biblical lessons. The Old Testament teaches us a theology of welcome. From the very beginning, in the Torah, God says, "For the Lord your God is the God of gods . . . who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes. He defends . . . the fatherless and the widow, and loves the alien, giving him food and clothing. And you are to love those who are aliens, for you yourselves were aliens in Egypt" (Deut.10:17-19).

Paul carries this lesson into the New Testament. He reminds us in Romans that Israel had forgotten to embrace foreign cultures with the love of God. The worship of the living God had lost much of its evangelistic fervor in their hands. The mandate the church receives is to accept others as Christ has accepted us.

In other words God loves the immigrants among us, and we are called to love them as well. However unsettling this may be, it is the American church's mandate to embrace God's theology of welcome in Christ Jesus. Our task as a church is not to judge immigrants but to love them, to become the arms of Christ, not the hands of tyranny. This is our prophetic and Christian duty.

As we look around our diverse country we need to remember that God's intent is for all cultures and tongues worship in his house. We tell our friends that the kingdom of God is a big party with a pi?ata where all are welcome. But what kind of fiesta is it, really?

Is the kingdom for the documented only? At this fiesta are Asians in one room and blacks in another? Are the Pentecostals all crammed into the afterglow room, whites in the living room, and immigrants in the back?

Throughout our history there have been times when non-Christians see through our hypocrisy. They recognize that not everyone is truly welcome in our churches. These are times when we've worried about being politically right when we should be focused on being biblically correct.

The root of American evangelical hypocrisy is smugness; a historical inability to understand God's unfailing mercies for the immigrant, his unfailing love for the poor among us. If our sense of worth is measured by privatized religion and political culture - from our color, to our work ethic, to the neighborhoods we live and worship in - we remain independent of God and self-sufficiently smug. Christ cannot help us. We are not being his church.

So the question I ask myself, and pose to every pastor, is: Shall I build a church that isolates us from immigrants, or should I embrace God's story of welcome?

It is easy to raise a church with one culture, one language, one worldview. Anyone can raise up a large that is one culture. But building a church that includes the alien, the immigrant poor, can only be done with Christ. That is our biblical challenge and our biblical mandate.

Isaac Canales is pastor of Mission Ebenezer Family Church in Carson, California.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at September 11, 2007 | Comments (40)

August 28, 2007

Missional Ice Cream

I've heard that the church is like a family. We've all been told the church is like a business. Now Leadership contributor, Chad Hall, explains that a missional church is like an ice cream truck. He may be on to something, but there will still be arguments about what kind of music to play.

My kids (6, 3, and 2 years old) LOVE the ice cream truck, and so do I. What's not to love? There we are, outside on a hot day playing in the yard or riding a bike or washing the car and out of nowhere we hear the faint melody of the ice cream truck. Like an unexpected friend dropping by, the ice cream truck rounds the corner and delivers delicious desserts in the middle of an otherwise humdrum day. It's a beautiful thing.

The ice cream truck reminds me of what it means to be a missional disciple. The ice cream truck driver has a wonderful gift he wants to bestow (okay, he's selling it ? every metaphor has its flaws, so let's ignore the mismatches, okay?). The driver also seeks out the very kinds of people who are ready and in want of the gifts he has. The driver does not sit in the parking lot of the old folks' home and wait for my family to drop what we are doing and come to him and get our cool treats. No, he comes to us. And we delight in what he brings.
Missional disciples also have a wonderful gift (Jesus), best offered to those who are in want.

The more I think about it, what my kids love is not the ice cream truck ? it's the ice cream itself. If we bring Jesus to people, people will love what we bring. But too often we get perplexed and even disappointed because folks reject our opinions about Jesus, or our system for understanding Jesus, or our organization that is devoted to Jesus. In fact, we may even find it difficult to know Jesus apart from our opinions, systems, and organizations related to him. Perhaps the most difficult aspect of being a missional disciple is letting Jesus be unwrapped from all that packaging.

But do people really want Jesus? Do they want Way, Truth, and Life? At some level, the answer for every child born of woman is "Yes." People want Jesus even more than my kids want ice cream because Jesus is the only Way we can Truly Live ? and every person wants to truly live.

For a while, my 5-year-old neighbor didn't think he liked ice cream. Go figure. At birthday parties, he'd take his cake plain. At summer cookouts, he'd settle for a cookie. When the ice cream truck came by, he just kept playing. But over time he kept noticing the other kids going bonkers over ice cream. Nobody forced him to try it. Though I considered holding him down and shoving some Neapolitan down his throat, I refrained.

Last week he finally came around. He likes bananas and he decided out of the blue to try some with ice cream. He liked it ? a lot. I'll let you draw out the deep and applicable analogies here, but the point is that everybody loves ice cream ? some people just don't know it yet. What's a 5-year-old kid really know, anyway? And aren't we all just kids who don't yet know what we really want out of life? If the gospel is true, then a saving and sanctifying relationship with God through Jesus is at the core of each of us. It is our essence.

Force-feeding Jesus to people will only produce skeptics and suspicion. The missional disciple goes out in search of folks who hunger and thirst for Jesus. Such a disciple seeks them out and introduces Jesus so that people can taste and see that the Lord is good. Some will receive Jesus with enthusiasm and delight, while others will be affected by the impact Jesus makes for those who savor him.

While every person wants Jesus, whether they know it or note, the missional disciple does not concerns herself with convincing people they want Jesus. Savvy ice cream truck drivers go where ice cream is welcomed and lets the Nutty Buddies and Push Ups do their magic. They don't go to country clubs or carpet stores. They're not out on the interstate or at a Harley convention. Jesus had some things to say about the healthy not needing a doctor. Savvy disciples (wise as serpents) go after the hungry and thirsty. This is why most discipleship should be expressed outside the church. (Notice discipleship here is "living like Jesus," not "learning about Jesus.") Disciples are to be on a mission to bring the delight of Jesus to the least expecting and most ready.

I believe there are Jesus-ready people just about everywhere, if we only have eyes to see and hearts that are open. How might we seek out and bring Jesus to those who hunger and thirst? Here are some ideas...

? Paying close enough attention that you discern the unique way a co-worker hungers and thirsts

? Providing a listening ear to a friend (or foe) who thinks no one cares

? Seeking out a neighbor to encourage

? Praying for the people who wouldn't expect your prayers

? Walking through shame and disappointment with someone who has suffered loss

? Forgiving an enemy (you DO have enemies) even though there is embarrassment on both sides

? Going out of your way to allow someone to experience the Holy One who makes his temple-dwelling in you.

So what about you? Where do you need to drive your ice cream truck this week?

Chad Hall is a ministry coach living in Hickory, North Carolina, and the co-author of Coaching for Christian Leaders (Chalice Press, 2007).

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at August 28, 2007 | Comments (10)

August 16, 2007

Lessons from St. Arbucks

Once an article is published in Leadership one never knows the ripple effect it will have. Greg Asimakoupoulos, pastor of Mercer Island Covenant Church, wrote for Leadership about the community-forming power of Starbucks in his neighborhood. He confesses, "We like to say that our church is a genuine community of faith, the kind of place people can feel at home. Still, you may have to go down the block to get to see that become a reality for lots of people. We need to be honest and admit that people are lining up to get into Starbucks, but they aren't lining up to get into many of our churches."

For this reason Asimakoupoulos refers to the coffee shop as St. Arbucks.

This week, Terry Mattingly drew heavily from Asimakoupoulos' Leadership article for his column which appears in over 100 local newspapers and at GetReligion.com. Mattingly recognizes the draw of Starbucks as a "third place" - "a safe zone between home and office. For generations, bars, diners, barbershops and a host of other locations have played similar roles." And he notes, "This kind of hospitality has become rare in this rushed world."

Diversity is another strength Starbucks exudes more than most local congregations. Mattingly continues:

Writing in Leadership Journal, Asimakoupoulos noted: "At St. Arbucks, I've seen a rabbi mentoring a Torah student. A youth pastor disciplining a new convert. High school girls working on a group assignment. A book club sipping mochas while discussing a fiction author's plot." Could churches try to be more open to outsiders?

However, before you throw out your ministry books and don a green apron Asimakoupoulos cautions us to be leery of some elements of Starbucks' strategy.

When [Asimakoupoulos] was a college student in Seattle, this local institution was about excellent coffee beans -- period. These days, the place that many call "four bucks" offers CDs, gifts, pastries and super-sweet drinks of all kinds, hot and cold. Hardly anyone goes there for pure coffee.

"Maybe we can let that be a warning," said Asimakoupoulos. "It's important for our churches to think about what people want, but we can't lose sight of what people need. We have to keep offering basic faith, the faith of the ages. The extras are nice, but people also need the classics."

Read Terry Mattingly's entire column here, or at www.tmatt.net.

Terry Mattingly directs the Washington Journalism Center at the Council for Christian Colleges & Universities.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at August 16, 2007 | Comments (22)

August 9, 2007

Evangelical Drop-Outs

A new study reported by USAToday finds that a high percentage of young adults who attended church while in high school stop attending by age 23. The poll was conducted by LifeWay Research, an affiliate of the publishing arm of the Southern Baptist Convention. 70% of young adults drop out of Protestant churches, and 34% do not attend even sporadically after age 30. That means at least one in four young people who leave the church never return.

"This is sobering news that the church needs to change the way it does ministry," says Ed Stetzer who directed the study. "It seems the teen years are like a free trial on a product. By 18, when it's their choice whether to buy in to church life, many don't feel engaged and welcome," says the associate director Scott McConnell.

Part of the problem, says Stetzer, is the way many churches organize their student ministries. "Too many youth groups are holding tanks with pizza. There's no life transformation taking place," he says. "People are looking for a faith that can change them and to be a part of changing the world." It seems spiritual formation, not just spiritual entertainment, may be what young people are seeking from a church.

Interestingly, the survey also found that those who stayed or returned to the church tended to grow up in a home where both parents are committed to the church. This may indicate that parents play a more crucial role in the spiritual development of their children than any church program.

Among the 7 in 10 who dropped out of the church a diversity of reasons were discovered:

• Wanted a break from church: 27%
• Found church members judgmental or hypocritical: 26%
• Moved to college: 25%
• Tied up with work: 23%
• Moved too far away from home church: 22%
• Too busy: 22%
• Felt disconnected to people at church: 20%
• Disagreed with church's stance on political/social issues: 18%
• Spent more time with friends outside church: 17%
• Only went before to please others: 17%

The full article may be read at the USAToday website.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at August 9, 2007 | Comments (34)

July 6, 2007

The Measure of a Ministry

This week Americans are celebrating their independence by watching parades, enjoying backyard barbeques, and by not going to church. If your congregation is anything like mine you know that during the summer worship attendance slips noticeably, and the week of July 4th is typically the low point. Family vacations and parties draw people away for some valuable R and R. I'm not pointing a self-righteous finger at church slackers. Last Sunday my family and I were not seen in church either, we were away camping.

But the "summer slide" raises a question. Why is Sunday morning attendance the one measurement we cannot escape? Why is Sunday morning attendance the make-or-break number; the figure we proudly display or secretly despair? Like a corporation's stock price, worship attendance seems to encapsulate a church's entire mission and health in one simple, if volatile, number. A number we watch carefully week to week praying for its increase.

At my church I am aware of a number of families and individuals who won't be attending Sunday worship very frequently this summer, and I'm thrilled about it. These people won't be in worship because they'll be overseas helping missionaries, or taking inner city kids to a camp in rural Michigan, or they'll be making meaningful connections as families on vacations- something valuable in a culture where families are struggling. Don't misread me, I think gathering regularly as a community for corporate worship, confession, and learning is both good and important. I just don't think it's so important that it should be the singular measure of missional impact, or even the primary one.

It has become very popular to talk about "life transformation" as the purpose of the church, and numerous studies have shown that worship attendance alone does not seem to impact people's behavior or values. (Ron Sider's book The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience comes to mind .) However, people who connect in meaningful and transparent relationships, the kind possible in small groups or with a mentor, do show more evidence of life change. Wouldn't this be a much better and more helpful number for church leaders to measure? Do you know how many people in your church connected relationally with another brother or sister in Christ last week? Probably not, but I bet you know how many sang songs and passively listened to a sermon.

Granted, Sunday worship attendance is easier to measure than small group attendance or relational connections but I don't think that's why we do it. Dallas Willard has said that most churches are designed to grow their ABCs (attendance, buildings, and cash) not disciples. The ABCs form an unholy trinity; a cycle that cannot be escaped easily. Sunday attendance is vital and meticulously measured because that is what funds the church - people give money on Sunday. The money is necessary to pay for institutional needs such as buildings, staff, and programs. And, of course, these tangibles are needed to attract more religious consumers to pay for more buildings, staff, and programs.

If our primary measurements are the ministry ABCs one must ask if the mission of the church is really life transformation or institutional expansion? I believe the first step toward breaking this cycle is to change what we measure. Rather than making Sunday worship attendance the most important statistic we need to emphasize something else. Relational or small group connections is one option but there are many others.

I know one church that measures how many people spend at least 30 minutes reading scripture three times a week. Another congregation measures the number of troubled marriages rescued. And another records how many members have invited neighbors to their home for a meal. This summer, rather than determining how many people are skipping worship services I'm much more interested in how many from my congregation are participating in short-term missions projects, serving in local compassion ministries, and spending meaningful time together as families. I believe what we measure indicates what we value, and what we value is what we should celebrate.

Posted by Skye Jethani at July 6, 2007 | Comments (17)

May 29, 2007

Vintage Consumerism

We caught up with Dan Kimball, pastor of Vintage Faith Church in Santa Cruz, California, and author of They Like Jesus but Not the Church (Zondervan, 2007), at a conference where he was talking to other leaders about consumerism and the church. Kimball says the size of a church isn't what makes it consumer driven, but how the leaders define success.

You've been talking to other pastors about consumerism in the church and the impact it's had on our theology. How do you begin to recognize that impact?
You hear a lot of the complaints and valid criticism about the church being "a provider of religious goods and services," as Darrell Guder says in the Missional Church. I started thinking about my own church and asking could the leadership be the ones who are really guilty of this? How did that happen?

I began to think about our meeting spaces. The early church met in homes where it is easier to participate, people can contribute, can be more vocal, make a meal, whatever. And then worship moved to the Roman basilicas and the format changed. People became more passive, but they still walked around and engaged. After the Reformation pews were brought in and people began to understand church different because they become passive. Expectations of a pastor and a leader become different. People expected us to do things for them.

So how has that translated into the church today?
We've been taught that this is how church goes. This is what you're supposed to do. But now we're making it better and bigger - better seating, better lighting, better sermons, better parking, better children's ministry, better youth ministry. We're simply fueling the whole thing.

But all of the consumer assumptions underneath are the same.
Yeah. And we haven't yet challenged those assumptions. But my bigger question is what is this producing? Is it really producing people who are living and demonstrating the fruit of the Spirit in their lives? Are they loving one another and loving God more? What are we looking at for success?

So what is your sense? Are the ?bigger and better' churches producing the fruit of the Spirit?
I think it depends on the church leadership. As you talk to different leaders you pick up what they focus on. Ask them how they define success or what are they most excited about. That's an interesting question. It reveals a lot. You can have a church of twenty thousand but what are you looking at as success? If I walked up to a person at your church would they say I'm here to get my religious goods and services. Or would they say I'm an active participant in the mission of this church, and this big worship meeting is just one part of it. Of course you can go to a small worship meeting and have the same exact thing. So it's not about big church or little church necessarily.

So what are you guys doing at Vintage Faith to question those underlying assumptions of consumer faith?
We are asking God to transform us into a worshiping community of missional theologians.

Whoa. Whoa. Whoa. Say that again.
We're asking God to transform us (because it can't be done through human effort); into a worshiping community (because we want to be worshipers first); of missional theologians (because if we're on a mission in our culture we have to be thinkers).

We're calling the church more of a missional training center as much as we can. We're launching community groups. We're calling them "community groups" even though we see them as house churches, but that name has weird connotations for some.

And what about your worship on Sunday, does that look different too?
Not really. Sunday meetings are just one part of the rhythm of the wekk when we all gather together, and we try to express worship to God and to teach in ways that creatively reflect who we are and the values we are striving to hold. Sundays are about community, care, worship and Scripture. But I'd hope that if you were to walk up to someone in our church and ask them "What is church?" they wouldn't talk about the big meeting but about being on a mission.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at May 29, 2007 | Comments (10)

February 5, 2007

We Aren't About Weekends

One Sunday Pastor Bob Roberts asked everyone in the congregation at NorthWood Church in Keller, Texas, to invert the collar of the person in front of them, find the label, and call out the nation where the shirt was made. China, India, Vietnam, Mexico, Chile, Kenya, Dominican Republic, and Spain were all mentioned before someone finally said "USA."

The shirts on their backs came from all over the world. It was Bob's way of reinforcing his recurring theme of glocalization, synonymous with Thomas Friedman's "the earth is flat." It describes today's seamless integration between the local and global, a comprehensive connectedness produced by travel, business, and communications.

"Glocal is as important a term to the 21st century as postmodern and seeker were to the 20th century," says Roberts, who has written two books, Transformation: How Glocal Churches Transform Lives and the World (Zondervan, 2006) and Glocalization: How Followers of Jesus Engage a Flat World (Zondervan, 2007).

He has applied the concept in quiet but effective ways at NorthWood, a church of 2,000 in suburban Fort Worth that has helped plant some 89 other churches in the last 15 years. The focus of NorthWood and all the daughter churches is not gathering people inside the sanctuary; it's clearly missional.

"We aren't about weekends," Bob says. "We aren't just trying to get people into church. It's 'kingdom in, kingdom out.'"

This means each church emphasizes weekday ministry in local neighborhoods as well as ongoing ministry with a particular nation overseas. NorthWood, for instance, has continuing ministries in Puebla, Mexico, and sends people several times a year to both Vietnam and Afghanistan to help with orphans, education, clinics, small businesses, water purification, and more.

Over three days, including both a weekend and a weekday, Leadership interviewed Bob about life in a glocal church.

What is the mission of NorthWood Church?

Glocal transformation.

You mean transformation of individuals or of communities or what?

All of it. It starts with individuals. But it can't stop there.

Societies are built on several domains:

? The family, from which we get our values.

? The tribe, from which we get our culture.

? The city, from which we get our livelihood.

? The nation, from which we get our security and our trade.

Finally, the world. And all of that is within the realm of the kingdom of God. We use the word glocal, meaning the kingdom encompasses all of this, local and global.

The number one result of God's kingdom is transformation of all the sectors.

Wow. That's some purpose ?

No, that's our mission. Our purpose is to glorify God. I'm still Augustinian in my theology.

Okay. So what's your church's role in this transformation?

We're a connection center between believers and all of society's domains. Jesus told his disciples to be his witnesses, to live out and proclaim the gospel, in "Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and the ends of the earth."

"Jerusalem" is where we live and work. We train our people to view their vocation as their "Jerusalem" ministry. From there, we teach them to use their vocation and skills to intersect a domain locally ("Judea") and to other nearby cultures - for us, Mexico is our "Samaria" - and globally to the "ends of the earth" (we define that as a hard place in the world, and for us, that's Vietnam and Afghanistan).

Continue reading the interview with Bob Roberts on our Christian Vision Project webpage.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at February 5, 2007 | Comments (6)

February 2, 2007

Forecasting the Future

I have just finished reading James Martin's The Meaning of the 21st Century. And - in my opinion anyway - every person who seeks to influence others to the Christian way ought to be conversant with this book. Don't expect to find a Christian point of view about the future - just the opposite, in fact. But you will get a catalog of the issues that humanity faces in the next few decades. The issues are political, economic, technological, scientific, and, I believe, moral.

Martin, who comes out of the world of Oxford, spends most of his time ruminating on the social and economic impacts of computers and technology. So says the book jacket. His mind is deep and broad which is to say that he knows lots of things. And this book demonstrates it.

I found myself fascinated, not threatened, by James Martin for several reasons. First, because he is an intellectual who represents the totally secularized mind. It doesn't hurt to acquaint ourselves with what people like him really sound like.

Second, because Martin has done his homework within the world he's defined for himself. In other words, he's thought through this stuff and isn't going to be easily dismissed. Push back at him if you want, but you better have done your homework.

Thirdly, because he's identified the issues of real consequence that every one of us will soon be living with, like it or not. Live twenty more years, and every one of Martin's concerns will be on your mind?daily.

Finally, I appreciated Martin's call to civilization to make some tough conversion-like decisions (some of which I think are plainly spiritual) if it cares to see the planet survive the 21st century. I wish I heard more voices in my faith tradition speaking as clearly as Martin does.

At this point in my life, I have felt a freshened call to do whatever I can each day to encourage and cheerlead a younger generation of Christian leaders. To challenge them to deepen their communion with God, to rediscover the Biblical building blocks that lead to a durable and resilient faith, to call people to a vibrant witness to Jesus which is less about words and more about meaningful initiatives that align with God's purposes. And James Martin helps me identify another aspect of this call. To persuade younger men and women to become more involved and influential in the emerging planet-wide dialogues (everything from Starbucks to Davos) about the imperiled future of the human race. I think Jesus would like us to do this.

Read more of Gordon MacDonald's forcast of the future at Leadership's homepage.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at February 2, 2007 | Comments (10)

January 12, 2007

Missional Buzz

The upcoming winter issue of Leadership will wrestle with the meaning of a very popular word - missional. Tim Conder, pastor of Emmaus Way in Durham, North Carolina, says, "So many fellowships that once boldly self-identified as cell churches, meta-churches, house churches, seeker-style, or purpose-driven now claim to be missional. It's such a buzzword that it's fair to ask, ?Is there really any such thing as a missional church?' Tim's full article on the subject is featured in Leadership's theme section, "Going Missional." Here is a preview.

The game show To Tell the Truth pitted three guests (two imposters plus the day's mystery guest who had some unusual occupation or accomplishment) against a panel of celebrities. The panelists asked questions of the guests, trying to identify which one actually had that occupation or accomplishment. The show ended dramatically when the truth was revealed: "Will the real ____________ stand up!"

Today, it would be almost impossible for "the real missional church" to stand up. Yes, there are plenty of imposters, but there's no one true example to play the day's mystery guest. And any panel of celebrities probably wouldn't accept the outcome.
So many fellowships that once boldly self-identified as cell churches, meta-churches, house churches, seeker-style, or purpose-driven now claim to be missional. It's such a buzzword that it's fair to ask, "Is there really any such thing as a missional church?" Although some use the term glibly, I believe the answer is "yes."

Missional at the core

In essence, missional churches seek to align their identity, activities, and hopes with God's redemptive mission on earth. This is a tall order for churches that brim with cultural and programming expectations, resource abundance, iconic labels (like "evangelical" or "mainline" or "Pentecostal"), and visions of grand ambitions. The temptation is always to have a grand scheme to which we incessantly try to woo or invoke God's presence rather see ourselves fitting into God's agenda.

In contrast, the missional church is a corrective to or an outright rejection of commodified and cultural Christianity, steeped in institutionalism, individualism, and sentimentality.

Identifying missional churches can be difficult. Such churches are separated by identity and perspective as much as their visible forms. Nonetheless, there are some common commitments.

(1) Missional communities try to align themselves holistically with God's theme of redemption. They resist the use of Christianity as an anesthetic to the pain of human needs and as an affirmation of the superiority of one culture's way of life.
This is lived out in several common practices.

(2) Programming and finances are directed outward. It's easy for much of the church's program and fiscal reflexes to become directed internally. Emphases on church growth or "building the body" are often presented as the mission ("A larger church means more space and opportunity for our community to encounter Christ," is the overt message, when the real message to staff is, in fact, "Keep the saints happy and coming back.").

To counter this temptation, missional communities may cut back on programming to leave space for breathing and living. Some ministries are relocated from the safe confines of the church into the community. Financial assets are viewed as both opportunity and burden. Some missional churches have made a pattern of giving away resources without control or strings attached to reduce congregants' sense of entitlement.

(3) Missional communities are discontent with spiritual formation as primarily cognitive assent ("I believe this to be true"). Instead, formation is presented as a way of life, a rhythm of being, and a rule of values. It emphasizes faithful living during the week rather than gathering for worship at a weekend event. The sharp boundary between the sacred and secular is evaporating as missional fellowships seek to hear God's voice in culture and creation.

(4) Embracing the ethnic and social diversities of local communities is becoming a moral expectation. (This is one aspect of God's voice that I believe we have heard strongly from outside the confines of the church.)

(5) Finally, missional communities are not only ardent listeners for the earmarks of God's redemptive work in our world, these communities are passionate activists when they find the pathways and trajectories of God's redemptive presence. The work of justice, reconciliation, peace, and spiritual direction are becoming the dominant reflexes of missional communities.

In this spirit of activism, theological debates and historical sunderings are becoming marginalized. Not only does the sacred/secular boundary blur in missional communities, but also the sharp divisions between mainline and evangelical, between Catholic and Protestant, and even between Western and Eastern Christianity.

When I think of broad-based and radical changes like this, no single community or individual leader can stand up, "tell the truth," and perfectly embody the spirit of that revolution before a panel of inquirers. The missional church is diverse beyond single models and dominant voices. It comes in Reformed and post-reformation varieties, new monastic and post-church gatherings, and in transitional churches building missional ministry on their traditional foundations.

The missional church is far from complete; the exploration has just begun. But from the wide-angle, historical lens of God's great redemptive narrative, the task remains the same - to find and join God's gracious work.

Tim Conder is the founding pastor of Emmaus Way in Durham, North Carolina, and author of The Church in Transition: The Journey of Existing Churches into the Emerging Culture (Zondervan, 2006). This post is excerpted from an article in the Winter 2007 issue of Leadership.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at January 12, 2007 | Comments (30)

January 2, 2007

Book Review: Reimagining Evangelism

Eight centuries ago St. Francis of Assisi famously told his followers to "Preach the gospel always. And use words if necessary." Like Francis, Rick Richardson's new book Reimagining Evangelism: Inviting Friends on a Spiritual Journey (Intervarsity, 2006) challenges our popular assumptions about outreach. To jumpstart our discussion of Richardson's ideas we've invited David Robinson, pastor of Harvest Fellowship Church in Manhattan, Kansas, to review his book.

Rick Richardson opens his book, Reimagining Evangelism, with this statement?"Over the years, evangelism has gotten a bad name. It is sales, manipulation, TV preachers, big hair, pushing people to convert and going door to door. It elicits feelings similar to the intrusive practice of telemarketing." People are repelled by clich? images of evangelism and the church's tendency to reduce the dynamic work of God into an easy to read, streamlined, impersonal message. After our recent barrage of political ads, it's frightening to consider their similarities with certain methods of evangelism.

Reimagining proposes a fundamental shift in our current image of evangelism. If we are to engage people in this consumer culture with the gospel message, Richardson believes we first need to rid ourselves of this unhealthy image of evangelism as "closing the deal" on some impersonal spiritual sales call. He proposes the image of a travel guide who encourages those around them to recognize what is already going on and invite them to take part in God's much bigger story.

I appreciate how Richardson plainly states that those who follow Christ need to see themselves as collaborators with the Holy Spirit in guiding people on a spiritual journey. I think he does an excellent job of showing how evangelism is not exclusively reserved for a special group of Christians, but is something that we are all gifted to be a part of.

He takes this a step further by saying that evangelism is not to be seen as simply the role of one individual, but that entire communities have a role as well. In his challenging 3rd chapter he claims that there is a shift "to a central focus on community in the process of conversion" taking place. He states repeatedly that conversion is not to be seen as a "me and God thing", but instead as a family affair where we shift allegiance from the world to Jesus. In our "commitment-phobic" culture, this shift puts a much greater emphasis on healthy, authentic communities that understand their identity and their role. This importance of our corporate witness is certainly something the Church today needs to consider.

Richardson understands that we live in a spiritually hungry and self-absorbed time. He reminds us that what many people need know about Christ is that those who follow him can be trusted. I appreciate not only Richardson's clear writing and to-the-point style, but also his spirit of humility and vulnerability throughout. May we be the kind of communities who will guide others on the spiritual journey with the same spirit of humility and vulnerability.

Reimagining Evangelism
Inviting Friends on a Spiritual Journey
By Rick Richardson

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at January 2, 2007 | Comments (13)

December 5, 2006

Missional Bricks and Mortar

A few years ago churches that were serious about their work were "purpose-driven." Today those same churches might call themselves "missional." The upcoming winter issue of Leadership will ask what exactly it means to be missional. David Fitch is a regular contributor to Out of Ur, pastor of Life on the Vine, a missional community in Long Grove, Illinois, and the author of The Great Giveaway. In this post Fitch asks if owning a building is contrary to missional church values.

Is buying a building always contra being missional? Upon first instinct, the answer would be yes. Certainly missional gatherings would hesitate to invest in a traditional church building. But are there times when inhabiting a building might itself be incarnational according to missional logic?

One positive thing about the end of modernity is that truth cannot be held captive by the rational, the strictly representational, or the logocentric. It must be embodied. So we who live in these times naturally resist any attempts to strip truth of its embodiment. Missional living, we say, must be incarnational.

But if truth is to be embodied, if we are not going to be limited to only words, then we must embody ourselves as a physical presence in the community. This might include inhabiting a building.

I am sure many, perhaps the majority, of missional communities will gravitate towards meeting in homes. But if embodiment in a community requires this community to see us, watch our way of life, see they way we welcome and engage the hurting, recognize God in our architecture, our meals, our artwork and worship, then there might be times when we should take residence in a place that is visible to the community. I know this goes against all missional thinking, so I am just asking, at what point does a building become incarnational?

I understand the resistance of missional churches to own buildings. They are cumbersome, require resourses, and often push the church into an attractional mentality as opposed to a missional/incarnational one where the church is dispersed into the world. This is all good. But I argue that there are times and places (not all times and all places) where buildings, sanctuaries, and physical architecture might be the very expression of such an incarnational community. In other words, part of incarnation might be the very brick and mortar of the sacred space we gather in. A building could exemplify and point all who would see it toward the reality of God.

There might be therefore, a stage in the development of some missional communities when a building makes sense. Some of our best examples of missional communities have made investments in buildings (like Solomon's Porch and Jacob's Well). In order to be missional we might need buildings, particularly buildings that resist the impression that Christ is another thing for distribution at a Walmart. Not a big box church, but a building where artists render the theology of our life together upon its space. We might need a building to feed the poor, to give sanctuary to the victimized. We might need a physical space that wipes the blank stare off modern people's eyes to see a reoriented world under the Lordship of Christ.

To all those who meet in houses, I am sure all of this can be done in a home gathering. It is possible that art, meal, architecture, and furniture can embody the incarnational Christ in a living room. But sometimes it might be ok to devote a building for this purpose. Not a grandiose big box where the sign of the cross is not visible. Not a monstrous and expensive edifice that dwarfs and disfigures the surrounding community with corporate pretense. But a church inhabiting the community which visibly embodies the life of Christ in our midst. I think sometimes (not all the times, and it requires discernment) such a building is incarnational.

Consider all of the dying vestiges of a past church life in the cities where His Body once lived but somehow died or moved on. Many city neighborhoods desperately need a visible witness of the new life made possible in Christ. As long as the missional incarnational DNA remains, I believe these old buildings might be the very places for a re-incarnation of the gospel.

Our congregation started in an abandoned church building after the previous church closed. We filled it with art, camped out on its property, and now seek to engage the community from its launching pad. It provides the base for the Presense in the bland suburbs. In the midst of the urban landscape, and especially the suburbs, there may be times when such old buildings provide the basis for a uniqiue physical presense? What do you think?

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at December 5, 2006 | Comments (20) | TrackBack

October 10, 2006

Preventing the End of the World

The world is shrinking. One can hardly go a day without hearing about events in Iraq, Afghanistan, South Korea, or Israel. Recently leaders from around the world gathered in New York for President Clinton's Global Initiative Conference to discuss the challenges we face. Pastor and Leadership's editor-at-large Gordon MacDonald was there.

I was recently invited to the Clinton Global Initiative Conference in New York City by the former president. As far as I know only a handful of evangelicals were present among approximately 1,000 political, business, and cultural leaders.

The CGI Conference is a crossroads of ideas and networking to reduce cultural and political barriers that separate human beings and create the grounds for conflict and disaster. Panel topics included (1) Energy and Climate Challenge; (2) Global Health Issues; (3) Poverty Alleviation; and (4) Mitigating Religious and Ethnic Conflict. They were populated by people like Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, Colin Powell, Rupert Murdoch, Paul Farmer, Kofi Annan, Hamid Karzai, Pervez Musharraf, Bill Gates, and Paul Kagame (president of Rwanda). And I have named only a few.

Amazingly, there was little energy spent on politics. Rather there was an incredibly serious tone, a clear awareness that the world is in greater trouble today than it has ever been.

Some (like the King of Jordan) spoke of the widening rift between the Muslim world and the West in almost prophetic tones. The two cultures are misunderstanding each others' hurts and aspirations.

Climate change, fresh outbreaks of disease, the lack of basic community health (clean water, vaccines, etc.) are all contributing to a growing frustration that threatens the stability of the entire world. Despite the drastic situation there was a streak of optimism. Perhaps that was because the people at the conference are all entrepreneurs, can-do people who choose to see the opportunities that crisis creates. There was little hand-wringing and a lot of innovative thinking.

I know, all too well, that Bill Clinton is a polarizing name among many Christians. My association with him over these years has lost me any number of friends. Personally, I grew to love him and greatly care for him in the years that I served as a personal adviser. I recall many conversations we had about his post-presidency and the priorities for this period of his life. Since leaving office he has used his amazing ability to convince people of wealth to see their social responsibilities.

Some $7.2 billion has been pledged this year by business leaders and philanthropists in response to the Clinton Foundation Global Initiative. Richard Branson of Virgin Airlines has committed $3 billion over the next ten years to alleviation of pollution. Millions will be invested in research regarding malaria, TB, and AIDS. Laura Bush announced a new water-well program that features a low-tech pump powered by merry-go-rounds that function as children spin them in their play.

I left the CGI conference with several feelings in my heart.

1. I had appreciation for the seriousness with which these people addressed the topics at hand. There was no glitz, no posturing. This conference made me increasingly less interested in who is Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, Christian or Muslim, and far more interested in the question of who wants to save lives and offer hope and human dignity.

2. These people really believe that the end of the world (the end of humanity anyway) is a distinct possibility if these issues are not addressed globally, dramatically, cooperatively. I respect their seriousness. I will probably die before the full effects of our failure to act are felt. But my children will not, and their children will face a greatly diminished world of opportunity and security.

3. I felt that I was with people who have great compassion for the situation of the poor. Yes, to be candid, some of it is motivated monetary self-interest. More than once it was said that dealing with disease and poverty is simply good business. But there was also a great sense of moral responsibility.

4. I saw in my encounters with Muslims and Hindus and Buddhists that we have a lot of learning to do about who these people are. We have fallen into stereotypes which reinforce our positions rather than seek out the points of commonality that lead to partnership on global issues. When a man says to you, "I was raised by a mother who taught me that all things belong to God and that I must handle what is given to me with care and generosity," and he is a Muslim, I have to stop and ask "what have I been missing all these years?"

5. Finally, I was personally moved by the drastic situation of the poor in our world. One message that kept coming through in the conference - before you get caught up in the big expensive ideas, spend time asking what you yourself can do as an individual. On the way home, I made a little list that began with becoming more disciplined about energy use, and cultivating relationships with people of other faiths.

When I got home, I took out my Bible and re-read Jesus' words in the synagogue at Capernaum: "The Spirit of the Lord is on me because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He had sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor." The words took on new meaning.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at October 10, 2006 | Comments (32) | TrackBack

October 4, 2006

Catalytic Conversations: A beautiful and messy kingdom.

Leadership editor Marshall Shelley is in Atlanta this week for the Catalyst Conference, where 9,000 mostly younger leaders of churches are meeting to discuss ministry in today's culture. Here's his first report.

The conference officially begins tomorrow. Today was filled with "labs," 15 seminars on topics ranging from "Passion" (led by pastors Eugene Peterson, Craig Groeschel, and Mark Buchanan) to "Culture" (writers Andy Crouch and Lauren Winner, and the National Endowment for the Arts' Erik Lokkesmoe) to "Mission" (Shane Claiborne, Mike Foster, and Gary Haugen).

Right now I'm sitting in the balcony of the Performing Arts Center, where in a few minutes an informal "unplugged" session will feature a conversation between neo-church pastors Chris Seay of Ecclesia in Houston and Rick McKinley of Imago Dei Community Church in Portland, Oregon, and a Rwandan pastor whose name I don't know.

I heard McKinley for the first time this afternoon when he presented a lab on "This Beautiful Mess: a conversation on the Kingdom." Most people, especially the Catalyst crowd, know McKinley as "the pastor of the church where Donald Miller of ?Blue Like Jazz' goes." So I was somewhat surprised that Miller's name was never mentioned during the introduction or the hour-long session. But McKinley didn't need any borrowed credibility.

To the crowd of 300 or so, he offered a concise and provocative discussion of the relationship of the church to the Kingdom of God. This was theology, imminently practical theology.

"As pastors, we are tempted to build the church," he said. "So we send out postcards to targeted Zip codes and we promote church programs." But that misses the point, he argued. "Our job isn't to build the church. We're supposed to BE the church, and build the kingdom." He emphasized that the kingdom is to be experienced NOW, on earth, as Christians exemplify godly living, but he also pointed out, as the recent school shootings demonstrate, that the kingdom is also "not yet." God's kingdom won't be realized in its fullness as long as such sin characterizes our world.

He identified why many U.S. churches don't "get" the kingdom. The first reason is our individualistic culture. Ours is a "me and Jesus" spiritual life, disconnected from Creation, environment, relationships, and our surrounding community. Another reason is our tendency toward dualism: church vs. culture; sacred vs. secular; spiritual vs. physical. And ignoring the integration of those elements.

McKinley acknowledges the importance of Christ's atonement for the forgiveness of individuals, but as he emphasized, "The best expression of the church is NOT what happens on Sunday morning. It's what happens in the world during the week. And that's not something you can market."

His most provocative statements focused on the Christian's calling to love their neighbors, even if those neighbors don't respond to Christ or clean up their act. He told of his church's messy efforts to love those with addictions, mental illnesses, and other conditions that aren't easily cleaned up.

"We're not called to change people's behavior; we're called to love them whether they change or not. It's up to God to change them."

After the lab, hallway conversations were discussing how you can "love the addicted" without "enabling" their dysfunction and thus perpetuating their addiction.

If this is indicative of the level of conversation, this year's Catalyst is embracing both theology and practice, and getting to the heart of the Christian calling.

Posted by Marshall Shelley at October 4, 2006 | Comments (4) | TrackBack

September 25, 2006

Pop Justice: Is social action the latest church trend?

What do a pastor, a politician, and a pop star have in common? Until recently, not much. But Bono, lead singer of the band U2, has managed to unite these unlikely groups around the issue of social justice. As a self-appointed ambassador for the poor, Bono has helped the evangelical church in America become more sensitive to those in need around the world and awakened our marginalized, or in some places forgotten, call to seek justice. But, is the new focus on social justice just another pop-Christian trend? This week Dan Kimball, pastor of Vintage Faith Church in Santa Cruz, California, ponders that question.

I had a very, very haunting conversation with a good friend who is a pastor at a church in southern California. We hadn't seen each other for awhile and as we were catching up he was excited about a ministry he was starting with used clothing stores where all the profit goes to orphanages. My friend has had social justice and compassion ministries as major part of his church ethos since it began many years ago, definitely in the PB (pre-Bono) dispensation.

As he was showing me photos of his latest venture with the clothing stores he stopped and said, almost with embarrassment, "This sounds really trendy, doesn't it?" What was haunting to me and what I have thought about since the conversation I had with my friend, is what if it is true? What if social justice and compassion projects are simply the latest trend?

In recent years many churches have become involved in social justice issues, or at least talking about it. Saddleback and Willow Creek have both jumped onboard very strongly, including being a global voice for AIDS. I rarely ever go to a Christian concert, but during the last two I attended videos were shown of the band members in Africa talking about helping with Compassion International and the Invisible Children. And lately it seems at every leaders now bring attention to some international compassion or social justice project they are supporting. This is all so wonderful and must please Jesus so incredibly much.

Bono has certainly caused us all to really evaluate the "sleeping giant" (what he called the church several years ago) and how the church was ignoring the poverty, injustice, and AIDS crisis. He recently said the church has woken up and has now taken notice. But, will it last or will it fade like every other trend?

My friend's comment got me thinking because over the years I have seen the church get excited about "small groups", or about being "seeker sensitive," or "Vineyard worship music" and other various bandwagons the church jumps on for a season. And there have been many other trends that I wasn't a part of like cell churches, or using the baseball diamond for assimilation, or the breakouts of laughing in the Spirit by certain types of churches, or radio preaching, or whatever it may be. Whatever the trend the routine is the same. First there is excitement, then early innovators adopt them (maybe not the laughing in the Spirit), then in time most churches may do it. But eventually, it passes and we wait for the next "new" thing.

I keep wondering if all the attention the church at large is now rightfully and biblically giving to social justice could fade through time. Will we still see Christian bands showing videos of themselves in Africa five years from now? Will conferences spend time promoting compassion ministries and AIDS awareness five or ten years in the future? Will all the pastors and church leaders who today are such strong voices justice to the people in their churches still maintain that voice in the years ahead?

Of course, even if for some Christians and churches it is only a short-term trend even doing something short while still helps people and is greatly needed. So, I don't want to dismiss those who jump in while the conversation is prominent, as any help is very, very welcomed. But it seems horribly sad if this rising interest in justice is only-short term. I hope that is avoided, and the rising interest in compassion for the poor, AIDS, and caring for those with needs locally will not simply be a "trend." Hopefully it won't fade away, but instead we will come to see it as central to what it means to be a disciple of Jesus. I guess time will tell.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at September 25, 2006 | Comments (17) | TrackBack

August 24, 2006

Scum of the Church 2: What churches should learn from ‘80s youth ministry

Many churches are struggling to reach young adults. The conversation on Out of Ur for the last two weeks has wrestled with this problem. Brian McLaren believes we need to be asking different questions of those who've grown up in the church and left. Mike Sares, pastor of Scum of the Earth Church in Denver, sees a clash between the values of the Boomers and today's young adults.

In part two of his post, Sares describes how his church tries to accommodate the styles and values of young adults. He believes the same strategies used in the 1980s to reach teens need to be employed today - rather than putting up cultural barriers we need to be as winsome as possible and connect with the young adult crowd.

At times we at Scum of the Earth Church are criticized for having church on Sunday nights as opposed to Sunday mornings. The fear is that we are turning a blind eye to the things that happen in clubs and bars on Saturday nights, thus enabling lifestyles which may be contrary to the gospel. That is not our intent. We just want to make it as easy as possible for people to come to church. Boomer churches understood this concept when they chose to dress casually for church on Sundays compared to the formal attire of their parents' churches.

We've taken that a step further. Eric Bain, my co-pastor, got some flak from a Christian-college-educated young man when Eric wore an MTV t-shirt while he was preaching and used an illustration taken from "Punk'd," one of the network's popular shows. According to the young man, Eric was silently promoting a television network that would be injurious to people's spirituality.

While Eric acknowledged that everything on MTV may not be beneficial, he was attempting to connect with the crowd. He was being winsome.

The same is true in the style of our services. We are extremely laid-back. People ask me if we scream punk-rock hymns and have a mosh-pit during corporate worship. Others want to know if our style is more Industrial, Techno, Heavy Metal or Hip-Hop. In truth we are more "Emo" than anything else; but we wouldn't have a problem with any church adopting the styles mentioned because we realize that those can be used in legitimate expressions of faith.

I see it all as ?80s youth ministry grown up. The emerging church movement is as varied as the youth groups of the 1980s. Youth pastors tailored their ministries to the kids God put in front of them. The Presbyterian Church in the suburbs had a totally different tack than the inner-city storefront church. Youth pastors adapted a missionary mindset depending on the "tribe" of kids they were reaching. Those various tribes each had their own music, slang language, dress codes and even moral codes so each youth ministry looked different.

The emergent church is a "flock of singularities," meaning that it's like a bunch of different birds that all fly together in some kind of loose formation. The great denominations seem to be on the decline with the next generation partly because there is a mindset that if something can be duplicated everywhere, then there is also something about it that is not genuine. It's the same thinking that leads the young people I know to distrust Wal-Mart and Starbucks; they prefer the homegrown, local varieties instead. Churches like Solomon's Porch, Jacob's Well, Frontline, The Portico, Urban Skye, etc., are as different as the people they reach and nurture.

Still, the great liturgies of the Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, Presbyterian and Orthodox churches are not going to vanish. Who knows, they may even grow with the generations yet to come! The church of Jesus has always adapted in order to love people with the love of God. And that's the way it is.

This article was edited and modified from, "Young Adults and the Church: The Way Things Are," in SAMJournal issue 159

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at August 24, 2006 | Comments (23) | TrackBack

August 21, 2006

Scum of the Church: How the drive for “excellence” is driving young adults from the church

Recently, Brian McLaren challenged us to ask new questions about the absence of young adults in most churches. Mike Sares, pastor of Scum of the Earth Church in Denver, continues the topic by discussing the divergent values he has encountered between older and younger generations of Christians.

You may recall Sares told the story last year of the poet who dropped the f-bomb during their Christmas Eve service - with his permission. That triggered one of the most vigorous conversations Out of Ur has ever hosted. While likely less controversial, I trust Sares will challenge your thinking once again.

Every generation is quick to point out the hypocrisy of the one that preceded it. The generation born just after WWII began rejecting the values of their parents during the '60s. Now it's their kids' turn.

Today's young adults see a generation of baby-boomer Christians that has striven for "excellence" in every part of church life. Boomers proclaimed in the 1980s that image is everything, and their churches have reflected that cultural trend. The nurseries have got to be sparkling clean, the church buildings are marvelously functional as opposed to artistic, the music is as close to FM radio quality as possible (even if they must hire a band), the Sunday services are seamless with perfect transitions (just like television), the preaching is entertaining and informative (but not so deep as to offend visitors), and the plants on stage are beautiful (but artificial).

As a result, according to Dieter Zander, the next generation has concluded that "everything is image," and therefore nothing can be trusted. Church is too slick, too good, too polished to be real. And the twenty-something hunger for raw authenticity just doesn't fit in.

Reece and Keith were twenty-one and still idealistic enough to think that church should be a place that accepts people just the way they are. But that idealism was challenged when the last church they attended asked them to "Please remove your lip rings and nose rings, and cover up your tattoos so you are not a distraction to the other worshippers." Thankfully Reese and Keith's commitment to Christ outweighed the misguided reverence of their older siblings in the Lord. They were able to find another place they could worship, learn, give, encourage, and be held accountable.

But what about the rest? What about the ones who never recover from the stares, whispers, or misapplied Bible verses that condemn the way so many young adults dress and live? What about the ones who never see Christianity as relevant past grade school? What about the thousands of young adults who have never stepped foot into a church, and judge Christianity solely by what they see in the movies, on television, or in other media? How do we welcome them back into our churches?

It's been my experience that twenty-somethings simply want permission to struggle. Most fear that they are not good enough for God's family. Each week they are told about the standards they are expected to keep, and each week they are led to believe that the rest of the church is somehow keeping up. This "silence about the struggle" quietly drives young adults away from churches all over the country. One of the highest compliments the pastor of an emerging church can receive is to be told that his/her own difficulty in following Christ has given someone hope that they, too, can fail and still keep following Jesus.

Twenty-somethings also see a generation ahead of them in the church that cannot live well with moral ambiguity. Boomer Christians tend to divide the world into three categories: the holy, the secular, and the downright sinful. For example, there was a debate years ago about whether or not Amy Grant had "sold out" when she left the Christian recording industry and crossed over to the secular market. It wasn't evil, boomers would say, but neither was it holy.

The new generation of Christians, however, tends to see only two categories: the holy and the sinful. This means things that previously fell into the "secular" category are now open for consumption and experimentation without judgment. Take, for example, tattoos. I am often asked the proper spelling of Greek or Hebrew words for a young adult's decidedly Christian tattoos; but then, a Chinese dragon or skull and crossbones is just as acceptable. If it is not sinful, they reason, it is holy. Most young musicians I know don't want a Christian recording contract because that would pigeonhole them. Five Iron Frenzy, a band with a large Christian following that was instrumental in planting Scum of the Earth Church, kept playing nightclubs, bars, and going on tours with non-Christian bands.

Part 2 of "Scum of the Church" will be posted soon.

This article was edited and modified from, "Young Adults and the Church: The Way Things Are," in SAMJournal issue 159

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at August 21, 2006 | Comments (42) | TrackBack

August 10, 2006

Fallow Fields: 20 ways to waste time while not planting churches

Sorry for the long delay between posts. Url has been away in the only patch of North America without internet access. I recently listened to a speaker praise the state of the church in America. He lauded the efforts of politically active conservatives, affirmed the family-friendly movies being released, said the sale of pornographic magazines has taken a dive for 10 years, and was excited that churches are growing bigger than ever - all because Christians in America are living holy lives.

Apparently he hasn't read Ron Sider's book The Scandel of the Evangelical Conscience where surveys reveal American evangelicals aren't living any holier than their secular neighbors. Nor has he studied the report by Outreach Magazine, "The American Church in Crisis" that found church attendance in the U.S. isn't keeping up with the population growth. And does anyone really believe pornography use is declining because fewer magazines are being sold?

His positive, if ill-informed, message reminded me of something sent to us by Steve Addison, the Australian Director of Church Resource Ministries. Steve is passionate about church planting and has written a tongue-in-cheek list of suggestions for the church in America (or anywhere else the church is losing ground).

We've had some good input lately on why we're not seeing church planting movements in the developed world to the same degree we're seeing in the global south. If that's the case, we need to find something to do while nothing's happening. Here are 20 suggestions for what to do while we're not multiplying churches.

1. Call yourself an apostle. Have some business cards printed. Hand them around.

2. Throw lots of money at subsidizing unhealthy, declining churches.

3. Throw money at "experimental missional initiatives" and never evaluate their effectiveness.

4. Set goals for multiplying new churches but don't make it clear who is responsible to accomplish the goals.

5. Make someone responsible but don't give them any real authority, discretionary time, or funding. Change the appointment every two years. After ten years, save money by retiring the position and making everyone else responsible.

6. Appoint a committee to undertake a study and write a report. Wait three years then do it again.

7. Hire a consultant to undertake a study and write a report. Wait three years then do it again.

8. Appoint the wrong people to plant churches. When they fail conclude that church planting doesn't work.

9. When you see a healthy church plant say, "Yes it's growing but it's not really a (choose one) Reformed/Baptist/Assemblies of God/Presbyterian/Methodist/New Vine/etc. church."

10. Require pioneering leaders to be theologically trained before they can plant a church.

11. Throw your best leaders at your biggest problems, not at your greatest opportunities.

12. Watch pioneering leaders exit your movement and then comment on their lack of commitment.

13. Reward pioneering leaders with promotions. Get them away from the front line. Harness their drive to keep the institutional wheels turning.

14. In the 1960's change the word "missions" to "mission." To usher in the new millennium change "mission" to "missional." Around 2010 plan to change "missional" to "postmissional."

15. Agree to plant new churches when: (a) You're large enough (b) You're healthy enough (c) You have the leaders to give away (d) You have the money to spare (e) God has clearly shown you it's time (f) When the cow jumps over the moon.

16. Run workshops on church planting. Hold conferences on church planting. Offer a course at your theological college on church planting. Do nothing to follow up with the people who show an interest. Make sure only experts get to teach. Keep the practitioners away from the students. Keep the students in the classroom.

17. Grow your church, facilities, staff, and budget as BIG as you can. Let your vision stop at your car park. Let church history end with you. Let the Kingdom dream die.

18. Set ridiculous but catchy sounding goals like "500 in 5 years," or "2,000 by 2,000." Three years after the target date expires set new goals. Don't forget to change the dates!

19. Modernize your theology, then postmodernize your theology. Remove evangelism and church planting from the centre of God's mission in the world. When decline hits make sure the paid professionals are the last to feel the pinch.

20. Lastly, set up a blog on church planting. Link to other bloggers on church planting. Be sure they link to you. Add smoke and mirrors.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at August 10, 2006 | Comments (13)

July 21, 2006

Reaching the Liberal Next Door: Are conservative politics a barrier to the gospel?

Last March, the conversation on Ur heated up when Greg Boyd posted excerpts from his book The Myth of a Christian Nation (Zondervan, 2006). Boyd believes the mission of the gospel is jeopardized when we confuse God's mission with our nation's mission. Wading into the turbulent political waters this time is Wes Haddaway, pastor of evangelism at Harmony Bible Church in Danville, Iowa. Haddaway sees an urgent need to create Christian communities that transcend the Blue State/Red State divide.

Two years ago our church was growing at the rate of about a hundred people per year and we were all very excited about what God was doing. As the pastor responsible for evangelism and assimilation, I had a unique perspective. One night after visiting a family that was new to our church, it occurred to me that no matter what walk of life a person came from to our church, there was one thing that I could be sure of; they had all watched the O'Reilly Factor on Fox News within the last week. They all voted for the same candidates and had conservative social views.

This bothered me because while I was very excited about what God was doing at our church, it was puzzling to me as to why God would do this. "Why would God build the church of people who all thought the same?" The fact is that there are a lot of people in our community that will never come to our church, and it isn't because of Jesus - it's because of us. Somehow we've mixed politics, ideology, and our vision for our country, with who we are as Christians. This is a barrier that causes many people who are not Christians to not even want to be around us.

How can we be a church that allows people to have their politics and ideology, but also welcomes people from other viewpoints to be a part of the same church? (All of this assumes we want to reach those who are unlike us, which for some may not be the goal.)

The early Christians had to struggle with this very kind of dilemma. As a Gentile, I'm really glad they worked through it. Our challenge is very much the same. Our challenge is to not allow ?who we are' to prevent people ?who are not like us' from becoming Christians. If the early Christians had not worked out the 'Jew versus Gentile' issue the results would have been catastrophic. If they had not worked it out it's hard to imagine how a Jewish-based church would have even survived.

Again our dilemma is no less serious. We are drawing a circle around Christ that includes pro-life but excludes an economic system that is generous to the poor. It is fearful to speculate what could happen to Christianity if we don't work through this - after all, our political and socioeconomic views are fleeting compared to the eternal work of God. We need to face the fact that many people of our community and our world will not even listen to the gospel because of the political and ideological bias of the evangelical church.

What this kind of church would look like is hard to answer. However, I'm sure it looked just as hard to the Jewish believers. The answer eluded them for a while, but they found it. Our answer may be as difficult for us to comprehend, but it is there. A starting point might be to focus on some common ground issues, such as; domestic violence, sexual exploitation, racism, poverty, injustice?

Christ said that the gates of hell will not prevail against his church. I believe that the social economic and political ideology of much of evangelical Christianity will also not prevail against his church. Somehow God will save those people around the world, including our liberal neighbor and the person in the office down the hall from us. Somehow God will find a means to reach them. I just think he'd rather do it through us than without us.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at July 21, 2006 | Comments (30)

June 9, 2006

Is Church Growth the Highway to Hell?

The summer issue of Leadership, arriving in mailboxes in July, focuses on the impact of consumerism on ministry. Some people have equated the church growth movement with the rise of "consumer Christianity." Others believe the church growth philosophy has brought innovation and health to ministry.

Our friends at ChurchMarketingStinks.com are hosting an interesting conversation on the blessing/curse of the church growth movement. Here is a sample.

Start talking about church growth and things can get ugly. Eyebrows raise. Tempers flare. Comments explode. Just ask any blogging pastor who has broached the subject. It's as if growing your church is taking the on-ramp to the highway to hell.

The New Testament church grew daily (Acts 2:47). I think it's hard to deny that the purpose of the church is to grow, to bring in new people and increase numbers.

And perhaps that's the rub. Some people are concerned with motivation or focus, thinking numbers have suddenly become supreme. Others wonder if a successful church always has to be growing. Others ask if it's ever healthy for a church to be declining. Some might just be jealous.

In Part 2 of the discussion, Rick Warren chimes in with his 9 myths about church growth:

Myth #1: The only thing that large churches care about is attendance.
"The truth is, you won't grow large if that is all you care about" (48)

Myth #2: All large churches grow at the expense of smaller churches.
This may be true for some churches, but not all, and it's certainly not a good sign of growth. Warren calls it "reshuffling the card deck". (For the record, 80% of Saddleback's members became Christians at Saddleback.)

Myth #3: You must choose between quality and quantity in your church.
Every church should want both, and they feed on each other. Quality produces quantity (do it well and people will come) and quantity produces quality (if you have more people, you'll have more skilled people).

Myth #4: You must compromise the message and the mission of the church in order to grow.I never understand this critique. Somehow the church is selling out because people are coming. There are some churches that have watered down the message, but painting every church in such broad strokes like this is so wrong. It always seems like a bit of petty jealousy to me - that church is growing and mine isn't, so they must be doing something wrong.

Visit Church Marketing Stinks to read more.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at June 9, 2006 | Comments (48) | TrackBack

June 1, 2006

Beyond Bodies, Bucks, and Bricks: Jim Collins on how churches should measure success

Dallas Willard has said that most churches are not intending to produce disciples, but increase their ABC's - attendance, buildings, and cash. Dave Terpstra, pastor of The Next Level Church in Denver and regular contribut-Ur, believes many church leaders focus on these tangible measurements of success because they are simply easy to quantify. In recent months, Terpstra and his elders have been stretched to think differently about discerning ministry success by reading Jim Collins' advice to non-profit organizations. The respected author of Good to Great believes churches and businesses must evaluate success differently.

Jim Collins recently wrote a monograph to accompany his best-selling book "Good to Great" where he examines the application of his book in the social sectors. He was also interviewed on the subject of his monograph for the current issue of Leadership.

In both the monograph and his interview Collins emphasized the importance of being disciplined as an organization in defining goals and assessing results. But the most intriguing aspect of Collins' work is what he suggests true goals and results for not-for-profits should be (and should not be).

Quickly after entering church leadership, most individuals realize that churches find value in the intangibles. Whereas businesses exist to make money for their shareholders, churches and other not-for-profits exist for something else. Collins suggests that one of the biggest mistakes those of us in the social sector make is to follow the business sector in thinking that money is a goal or output of our church.

Quickly after entering church leadership, most individuals realize that churches find value in the intangibles. Whereas businesses exist to make money for their shareholders, churches and other not-for-profits exist for something else. Collins suggests that one of the biggest mistakes those of us in the social sector make is to follow the business sector in thinking that money is a goal or output of our church.

According to Collins, money is only an input in the social sector, not an output. In other words, we need capital and other resources to carry out our work. But increasing capital is not the point of our work?or is it? How are we supposed to define success in the church?Even more to the point, how are we supposed to measure success in the church?

The three most measurable "products" of church communities are bodies, bucks and bricks. It doesn't take long in church leadership to begin to compare your ministry to others. And whether right or wrong, we all evaluate our churches relative to other churches. I believe every church leader asks these sorts of questions: Are more people coming in the door? Are we able to find a place for them to sit and a place to take care of their kids? Are we growing financially so that we can expand our programs to serve them?

No doubt you have probably heard the maxim before that every church is an organism. Every organism that isn't growing is dying. But as Collins suggests, there is more to growth in the not-for-profit world than the tangibles.

Simply growing the number of bodies, bucks and bricks at our church isn't the answer. I hope you already know that. But how do we define and assess the intangibles?

Collins gives an example of the Cleveland Orchestra. They defined their success according to three seemingly unassessable goals: superior performance, distinctive impact, lasting endurance. However, Collins demonstrates how they were able to assess their ability to meet their goals even though they seemed intangible.

Although most of the assessments the orchestra used dealt directly with intangible aspects of their goals, some of the measurements they used involved bodies, bucks and bricks. The orchestra asked questions like: Was their an increased demand for tickets? Did supporters donate more time and money? Did the endowment increase?

Although I agree with Collins' statement that resources are not goals but simply inputs into our churches, it seems to me that even according to Collins, bodies, bucks and bricks have to factor into our assessment of our churches. Perhaps there is truth to the growing or dying organism analogy. But something in me doesn't want there to be. Somewhere inside of me wants to believe that attendance can be going down and God might still be blessing our community. I want to believe that giving can be decreasing but lives could still be changed.

But somewhere else inside of me knows that decreases to bodies, bucks and bricks are probably not typical signs of health for church communities. So the question we have to ask ourselves is: how should church leaders define success?

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at June 1, 2006 | Comments (30) | TrackBack

April 10, 2006

The Passion Reloaded: is the silver screen really an outreach silver bullet?

Two years ago, Mel Gibson's film, The Passion of the Christ, was marketed heavily to church leaders as "perhaps the best outreach opportunity in 2,000 years." Gibson stunned Hollywood naysayers by pocketing over $600 million as The Passion became the eighth highest grossing film of all time. By targeting churches The Passion may have uncovered the greatest marketing opportunity in 2000 years. But what about the film's spiritual impact - did The Passion deliver?

According to George Barna, it did not. Barna conducted an extensive survey of those who saw the film and concluded:

"Among the most startling outcomes?is the apparent absence of a direct evangelistic impact by the movie?. Less than one-tenth of one percent of those who saw the film stated that they made a profession of faith or accepted Jesus Christ as their savior in reaction to the film's content."

Either The Passion wasn't the greatest outreach opportunity in 2000 years, or churches simply squandered the opportunity it presented.

Barna thinks the problem was relying upon a film to impact lives in a culture saturated with media. "In an environment in which people spend more than 40 hours each week absorbing a range of messages from multiple media, it is rare that a single media experience will radically reorient someone's life."

After seeing Gibson's financial success Disney hired the same marketing firm used by The Passion. Motive Marketing helped Disney convince pastors that its Narnia film was a powerful tool for reaching non-Christians. And repeating The Passion frenzy of 2004, churches gobbled up tickets, reserved entire theaters, devised sermon series, and plastered Narnia marketing materials throughout their communities.

With Motive Marketing's church-based marketing campaign Disney has collected nearly $300 million from Narnia. And while data is still being assessed on the spiritual impact of the film, it's a safe bet that Narnia will have impacted fewer Americans than The Passion did. (Of course, with Disney releasing the DVD in time for Easter it's not too late for your church to launch another marketing campaign.)

Paul Lauer, president of Motive Marketing, says his company's primary mission isn't marketing movies, but rather "providing congregations with tools to further their goals." Given that The Passion and Narnia have collectively earned nearly one billion dollars, while the church's goal hasn't measurably advanced at all, maybe Mr. Lauer needs to reassess his company's mission.

The debate over using films for evangelism isn't new. Back in 2004, Leadership hosted a lively interaction about The Passion's potential for outreach featuring Rick Warren and Brian McLaren. Warren wrote that his church was eagerly riding the "spiritual tsunami" created by the film. He reported 892 commitments to Christ were made during his two-week sermon series based on The Passion, over 600 new smalls groups were formed, and his church's average attendance increased by 3,000. This response, while worth celebrating, according to George Barna does not represent the experience of most churches who reported little or no growth as a result of the film.

Brian McLaren, on the other hand, was hopeful that millions would be impacted by Gibson's film but he remained skeptical. McLaren was bothered by the hype surrounding the movie and questioned why slogans such as "the greatest outreach opportunity in 2000 years" held such sway with church leaders. He cautioned us to not put our hope in "products (like films, radio broadcasts, boxed programs, etc.)," but in the good works of disciples filled with God's love."

McLaren's cautions seem to be validated by Barna's research. Despite having more media resources than ever before to accomplish its mission, including big-budget films, the church in America isn't growing. Barna reported that church attendance has been experiencing "a very slow but steady descent" for the last 15 years. Disturbingly, at the same time churches are increasingly looking to the silver screen to aid in outreach, Barna reports that less then one in 25 churches ranks prayer as a top priority.

Disregarding the measurable ineffectiveness of film as an outreach tool, church leaders continue their love affair with Hollywood. Outreach Inc. conducted a survey in January that revealed 68% of churches were "likely" or "very likely" to use The Da Vinci Code film (opening May 19) as an evangelistic tool, and a staggering 77% said they were planning a sermon series on the film. (Proverbs 26:11 anyone?) Accountants at Columbia Pictures, producer of The Da Vinci Code, must be salivating at this forecast.

It seems many church leaders have lost the healthy skepticism anyone navigating a consumer culture must possess. Rather than pinning our missional hopes on the latest pop culture wave, which is artificially produced by marketers, church leaders might benefit from remembering the old adage, if it sounds too good to be true it probably is. Evidence shows that there is no outreach silver bullet, no "greatest opportunity ever." As Craig Detweiler, the chair of mass communications at Biola University, says, "Salvation certainly won't come from Hollywood."

Modeling a balanced perspective too rare today, Detweiler believes films must be linked to a more incarnational approach to outreach, "Movies give us an easy, non-threatening way to continue a conversation and deepen relationships with pre-believers that we've already started." As Brian McLaren said two years ago, our culture doesn't need to see "a movie about Jesus: show them a movement of people living like Jesus."

Posted by Skye Jethani at April 10, 2006 | Comments (39) | TrackBack

March 10, 2006

Cutting the Cord: Are Megachurches Birthing the House Church Movement?

In recent months the conversation on Out of Ur has explored why increasing numbers of Christians are opting to pursue Christ apart from a local church. The discussion began with Kevin Miller's review of George Barna's new book, Revolution. And, similar themes were addressed by Dave Terpstra in his post on why the spiritually mature leave the church. Church leaders; however, are no longer the only ones interested in this issue. Time Magazine ran a story on March 6 titled "There's No Pulpit Like Home" discussing the changes occurring in American Christianity and the rise of house churches.

Interestingly, the authors suggest it may be the megachurch advocacy of small groups that has fueled the house church trend:

[The megachurch] is made possible by hundreds of smaller "cell groups" that meet off-nights and provide a humanly scaled framework for scriptural exploration, spiritual mentoring and emotional support. Now, however, some experts look at [small groups]--spreading in parts of Colorado, Southern California, Texas and probably elsewhere--and muse, What if the cell groups decided to lose the mother church?

The Time article also explore the ideas of George Barna's book, Revolution, including Barna's beliefe that in 20 years "only about one-third of the population" will rely on conventional congregations for the spiritual development. To balance this radical forecast Time spoke with Jeffery Mahan from the Iliff School of Theology who agrees that a significant shift is happening in the American church, although it may not be as dramatic as Barna suggests.

American participation in formal church has risen and fallen throughout history, he notes, and after a prolonged post--World War II upswell, big-building Christianity may be exhaling again in favor of informal arrangements.

The "big-building Christianity" that Mahan refers to was another intriguing aspect of the article. It seems the mega-facilities the modern church has used to attract "seekers" may no longer be a draw for spiritually hungry Americans. The grassroots activism of house churches combined with their minimal institutional overhead may prove enticing to a new generation of socially active Christians.

Golden Gate Seminary's Karr reckons that building and staff consume 75% of a standard church's budget, with little left for good works. House churches can often dedicate up to 90% of their offerings. Karr notes that traditional church is fine "if you like buildings. But I think the reason house churches are becoming more popular is that their resources are going into something more meaningful."

All of this makes me wonder--is the house church movement a reaction against the megachurch, or the logical outcome of the megachurch?

In the end the significance of the Time article may not be found in its content, but in the existence of the article itself. The American evangelical church's cultural and political influence can no longer be denied, and as a result the secular media is paying attention to church trends that once only intrigued pastors and denominational leaders. This much is certain, whatever direction the church takes in the years ahead (mega or mini) we'll have plenty of secular scrutinizers documenting our journey.

Posted by Skye Jethani at March 10, 2006 | Comments (33) | TrackBack

January 16, 2006

George Barna's New Book 2: Defining the Debate

In my earlier post, I explained the thesis of George Barna's latest book, Revolution. I think it important, however, to offer 2 corrections to my review:

The review's subtitle, "George Barna wants commitment to the local congregation to sink lower than ever," is inaccurate. It was added by an editor after my last read of the copy and does not represent the book's views or my understanding of those. It would be accurate to instead say, "George Barna predicts commitment to the local congregation will sink lower than ever." Or it might be accurate to say, "George Barna is not overly concerned about declining commitment to the traditional local congregation, given that the traditional local congregation has not effectively produced mature disciples."

A second editorial change made just before printing is likewise inaccurate. I originally wrote, "Barna's early books (he's written more than 35) promoted Marketing the Church and The Power of Vision, so many perceived him as an ally of the megachurch. But in Revolution, his support for fluid movements and his direct challenge of a statement often used by Bill Hybels (?The local church is the hope of the world') make him now seem an ally of the emergent church." But in the printed copy the final phrase changed to "?make him now seem a foe of the congregation."

That's not fair to Barna. As I read Revolution, I don't take George to be a foe of the congregation. He predicts its decline; and he welcomes "spiritual mini-movements" that may or may not involve believers in the local church; and as he says, "Whether you become a Revolutionary immersed in, minimally involved in, or completely disassociated from a local church is irrelevant to me (and, within boundaries, to God)." That does not, however, make him "a foe of the local congregation," and I regret that those words were inserted.

So if you're looking for someone to dislike George, I'm not it. In fact, I should add that I'm a phone friend of Tom Black, a key leader for the Barna organization and a major influence on the book. (As you might guess, Tom doesn't agree with my take on the book. He was expecting this kind of objection but says that so far he's gotten positive feedback.)

Since the review was posted, many have sent me email, hailing me as a genius or decrying me as an idiot. Among the latter, one pastor felt I had defended the traditional, institutional, programmatic church and attacked the nontraditional, organic, house church. In subsequent emails with him, I explained that I have nothing against house churches and fully support them as a model.

I'm a defender of church, local church, but not of buildings and programs. I view church this way:

(a) traditional church: building, staff, programs.

(b) nontraditional church/house church: as long as these efforts are (i) local, (ii) have eldering/shepherding/overseeing in some form, (iii) preach the gospel, (iv) share the sacraments, I love and respect what's happening and recognize that many of them realize the potential of the local congregation as much as or more than model (a) above.

(c) do-it-yourself "church": the individual says, "I determine what will fulfill me spiritually" and floats from conference to small group to listening to sermons on his or her iPod. The person is not involved in a regular local gathering, not under someone's eldering/shepherding/overseeing, is not sharing the sacraments. This last option, unlike the first two, will prove to be a dead-end for spiritual development and kingdom expansion.

Bottom line: I oppose (c), but don't read that as opposition to (b).

Posted by Kevin Miller at January 16, 2006 | Comments (21) | TrackBack

January 11, 2006

George Barna's New Book: Revolutionary or Revolting?

The blogosphere has offered plenty o' chatter on George Barna's latest book, Revolution. For favorable comment, read my occasional-email-pal Andrew Jones (full disclosure: the Tall Skinny Kiwi once named me "Best Emerging Critic Ever"). For unfavorable comment, read Sam Storms or the re-posts by Kevin Michael Cawley (full disclosure: I ate lunch with Sam once and agreed with virtually everything he said, which must make him wise).

In my review in Christianity Today, I first tried to summarize the book's thesis:

Storm the barricades! According to researcher George Barna, we're in the midst of a "spiritual revolution that is reshaping Christianity, personal faith, corporate religious experience, and the moral contours of the nation."

Who's leading the coup d'?tat? Some 20 million people, dubbed Revolutionaries, who live "a first-century lifestyle based on faith, goodness, love, generosity, kindness, and simplicity" and who "zealously pursue an intimate relationship with God."

If true, this is amazing news, the best for American Christians in generations. But before we break out the party poppers, we should note that, like every revolution, this one has a loser: the local church.

Unlike the Great Awakenings, which brought people into the church, this new movement "entails drawing people away from reliance upon a local church into a deeper connection with and reliance upon God." Already "millions of believers have stopped going to church," so Barna expects that in 20 years "only about one-third of the population will rely upon a local congregation as the primary or exclusive means for experiencing and expressing their
faith." Down will go the number of churches, donations to churches, and the cultural influence of churches.

Are you worried about the church where you were baptized, taught, married, and given Communion? That's only a "congregational-formatted ministry," one of many ways to "develop and live a faith-centered life. We made it up." Writes Barna, "Whether you become a Revolutionary immersed in, minimally involved in, or completely disassociated from a local church is irrelevant to me (and, within boundaries, to God)." He doesn't reveal God's boundaries for church involvement, but they don't seem hard to get over.

Barna illustrates with two fictional characters who "eliminated church life from their busy schedules." Why? They did not find a ministry "that was sufficiently stimulating" and "their church, although better than average, still seems flat." Too bad for the lowly local church that people today insist on "unique, highly personalized church experiences."

So where are the Revolutionaries going? To "mini-movements" such as home schooling, house churches, Bible studies at work, and Chris Tomlin worship concerts. What matters is a godly life, so "if a local church facilitates that kind of [godly] life, then it is good. And if a person is able to live a godly life outside of a congregation-based faith, then that, too, is good."

? To see the 3 questions I then ask of this thesis, read the full review.
? To read 2 corrections I'd make to this review, and to hear reactions I'm getting, see my next post.

Posted by Kevin Miller at January 11, 2006 | Comments (30) | TrackBack

January 6, 2006

Sense & Sensitivity: Why It’s Time to Abandon the Seeker-Sensitive Model

To its credit the seeker movement has made church leaders everywhere more sensitive to the presence of non-Christians in our congregations. But, as the epoch of the seeker-church continues to wane, what enduring lessons will we carry with us into the future? Curt Coffield, a worship leader at Shoreline Community Church in Monterey, California, and former worship leader at Willow Creek, notes that newcomers have changed. "People aren't coming as much to be convinced of the relevance of Christianity as they are coming with a hunger for God."

As the church moves further away from familiar cultural paradigms, the paradigms that gave rise to seeker-churches, we need to seriously rethink the assumptions behind "seeker-sensitive" ministry.

At my church we are resurrecting the ancient language of hospitality to understand our call to love unknown people in our post-Christian culture. In ages past, travelers in the harsh lands of the Middle East often depended upon the hospitality of strangers for survival. Their principle of hospitality was simple: host first, ask questions later. Hospitality was not dependent upon a guest's identity - only their need.

When Abraham went out to greet three strangers (recorded in Genesis 18) he took this idea of Bedouin hospitality a step further. When the visitor is an ordinary person of equal rank, the host merely rises. But Abraham welcomes the strangers by bowing low to the ground, and he offers himself as their "servant" even though he was a very wealthy man with servants of his own.

Abraham asks no questions. He expects no payment. He places no conditions upon his hospitality. He merely welcomes these total strangers as honored guests worthy of his very best food, effort, and attention. Only later, after the strangers have eaten and rested, does Abraham engage in conversation and discover their true divine identity.

Throughout the Scriptures we find that God is concerned with the treatment of strangers. He commands his people to act fairly toward strangers (Exodus 22:21), to provide food for them (Leviticus 19:10), and to love them as one of their own (Leviticus 19:34). In the New Testament three apostles write repeatedly about the importance of hospitality (Rom 12:13; Heb 13:2; 1 Pet 4:9; 3 John 1:5; 1 Tim 2:3; Tit 1:8). But it is Jesus who lifts the importance of hospitality to a divine level.

"Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in?Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me." (Matthew 25:34-36, 40)

Christians in the monastic movement later codified the biblical ethic of hospitality as Benedictine Rule #53: "All guests who present themselves are to be welcomed as Christ, for he himself will say, ?I was a stranger and you welcomed me.'"

The abbot of the monastery was expected to personally welcome guests and wash their feet. If the abbot was in a season of fasting, he would interrupt the fast to eat with the guest. Only after extending his warmest hospitality would the abbot engage in conversation with the stranger, learn their identity and story, and invite them to worship with the community.

These principles of Christian hospitality have been practiced since the time of Abraham, but in the modern age the church abandoned the traditional language of loving strangers in favor of a new dialect. We called it "seeker sensitivity." The seeker church movement has taken the Bedouin and monastic idea of hospitality (host first, ask questions later) and reversed it. Now, thanks to the influence of business practices and marketing, the church tries to discover everything possible about its target guests, and then hosts according to their predetermined expectations. The result has been a radical shift in the way Christians worship and express their devotion to Christ, and a dehumanizing of Christian hospitality.

Where market research replaces the simple call to love strangers, the responsibility to be hospitable is no longer felt by individual members of the church - the music, sermon, and worship service have all been test-engineered to do the job instead. Market analysis has also shown that many people prefer to visit a church anonymously, so seeker-driven churches will often avoid identifying newcomers. Jesus may be among us in the form of a stranger, but we would never know it unless he filled out a response card.

In our changing cultural setting is anonymity still the right value for hospitality? Does sensitivity to non-Christians mean having to ignore Biblical rites, language, and church traditions? What does it mean in our day to honor strangers as Christ among us?

Some younger church leaders, myself included, believe that we need to abandon the seeker/believer dichotomy in the church and practice a "radical hospitality" instead. As another pastor notes:

A worshipping community which is radically hospitably to outsiders is appealing to a spiritually-minded generation who can readily spot "spin and marketing."

This radical hospitality means a return to the Abrahamic and Bedouin principle of "host first, ask questions later." Rather than trying to determine our target audience's desires in advance, we should welcome strangers indiscriminately into our tent/monastry/church and honor them by authentically revealing who we are. As St. Chrysostom, the 4th century pastor, said, "Hospitality is not manifested in the richness of our fare, but in the generosity of our attitude."

Posted by Skye Jethani at January 6, 2006 | Comments (31) | TrackBack

January 3, 2006

The Blessing of Blogs: Is the New Media Good for the Church?

The weblog phenomenon is being felt in every sector of our culture including the church. Some are heralding the blogosphere as an egalitarian "new media" that is changing the way people communicate and process ideas. But will blogs foster communication and understanding among God's diverse people, or inflame our divisions by giving all believers, mature and immature, an equal voice? Dr. Craig Blomberg, professor of New Testament at Denver Seminary, begins our new year by questioning the blessings of blogs.

I'm hardly an expert on blogging. My own ministry has been critiqued once or twice by bloggers, and my experiences with their postings have largely led me to ignore them. When Out of Ur ran a controversial story about a good friend of mine this fall, I read and contributed to the responses with interest for several weeks. That is the sum total of my experience with blogs. But it's enough for me to raise some questions. If Marshall McLuhan was even partly right that "the medium is the message," then what message does the medium of blogging send?

At first glance, one might argue that a blog is no different than an e-mail, or a letter to an editor in a traditional newspaper or magazine, or those old-fashioned communiqu?s that were hand-written and sent through something now called snail-mail. For private individuals who daily record their thoughts and experiences, it corresponds closely to what used to be called a journal or a diary. There can be good ones and bad ones, carefully and creatively written or barely intelligible to anyone but their authors. They can contain profound perspectives worth reading and pondering or banal drivel that at best wastes your time and at worst pollutes your mind. But all those options have always been possibilities with older forms of writing as well.

Is there anything distinctive about blogging? The most obvious answer is the ease of access in getting one's remarks "published." A traditional letter went only to its address?e. E-mails go at most to a personally selected distribution lists. Magazines and newspapers reject numerous "letters to the editor" for every one they publish. Diaries and journals have normally been intended for the author's eyes only. But when I read a friend's daily blog, all I have to do is click on "X Comments," type my response, and within seconds it appears on my computer screen as something anyone in the world can imbibe with the right web address and technology. True, some blog sites have filters to screen out certain language or pictures, while others have real people who may decide to censor correspondence. But the percentage of comments that still make it into (virtual) print still seems unprecedented.

And what of the choice to solicit responses to a blog posting on a particularly controversial subject? With unprecedented ease of access comes the temptation to "shoot from the hip" and respond with little thought or care for how one comes across. Are "Christian" blogs noticeably better in this respect? Or does the lack of a filter for all but the worst of responses almost inherently set up the readership for having to deal with extremists (in either tone or content) on both sides of a divisive issue? Of course, one can learn a lot from seeing how the far ends of a spectrum react. But is the church of Jesus Christ edified and built up? Are non-Christians who choose to peruse the conversation likely to be attracted to the faith? Will mediators and peacemakers win out over the rabble rousers? I'm not yet convinced that the answers to any of these questions are affirmative.

Besides, what messages are we sending when we allow bloggers or those who respond to them to post almost any linguistic utterance at will for all the world to read? To the undiscriminating, surely the answer is that even the most meaningless, intimate, hateful, crude or careless thought deserves an outlet enabling others to talk back. From a non-theological perspective, this is the ultimate demeaning of human language. From a Christian perspective, it may be an offense to the Word who alone gives human communication grace. But then, you might not be reading these words if it weren't for a blog site. So am I overreacting?

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at January 3, 2006 | Comments (20) | TrackBack

December 5, 2005

The Jaded Driven Church: Re-Introducing People to God & His Church

Some churches are seeker-driven. A growing number are purpose-driven. But one church in Denver, Colorado has positioned itself as jaded-driven. Dave Terpstra, teaching pastor of The Next Level Church, shares how his own disillusionment with ministry made him question the wisdom of targeting the unchurched rather than pursuing the increasing number of church dropouts, like himself, filling our culture.

C.S. Lewis once said, "One courts a virgin differently than a divorc?," (or something along these lines; I've had trouble tracking the exact quote). Even back in the mid 20th century, Lewis recognized that reaching people with a jaded perspective of the church (divorc?s) would require a different strategy than reaching those without any church experience to begin with (virgins).

Certainly there are still some in our culture who are "church virgins," but it seems increasingly more common to find people who have had some church experience or interaction with the Christian sub-culture that has left them jaded. The dominance of Christian media, marketing, and political influence in recent years has only increased this likelihood.

By now we're all familiar with Willow Creek's mission statement: "to turn irreligious people into fully devoted followers of Jesus Christ." Clearly, they are trying to reach the irreligious church virgins. The question is, how long before there is no one left who is "irreligious" or "unchurched"? I'm not suggesting that every American is actually religious and churched. Instead, I'm suggesting that whether they have attended a church or not, most Americans have formed an opinion about Christianity, and are far more jaded toward the church than we might want to admit.

So, is it wise to continue wandering the countryside in search of the increasingly rare church virgin, or should we be finding strategies to reach the herds of church divorc?s roaming our culture? At The Next Level Church we have chosen to go after those who are jaded, not only because of their number, but because most of us in leadership were in that place not too long ago.

During my first year at seminary, I successfully blew up two youth groups. I couldn't get along with the pastors of the churches I was serving, and it was messy. I can't in a few words describe my pain and shame about those failures. Despite bearing some of the responsibility myself, the experience left me with a jaded perspective of the church and its leaders. Deciding to leave the church altogether, a mentor and friend recommended that I attend a church instead of work at one. He connected me with TNL (The Next Level Church).

After a year and half at TNL, my view of the church had changed and my perspective was far less jaded. However, six weeks after I was hired on staff, our senior pastor resigned due to a major pattern of sin in his life - another opportunity to become jaded. But this time something was different. This time the pain was not something unknown. I had felt it before, and through his grace God allowed me to help others who were feeling it for the first time.

Because of the growing number of people in our culture with a negative perspective of the church and Christianity, we have adopted a strategy at TNL to intentionally reach them. We are seeking out the divorc?s. One of our core purposes is to introduce and reintroduce people to God and his Church.

The term "reintroduce" means something to people around TNL. Our community is full of "church divorc?s," people who have been burned by the church in the past. This reality has informed everything from how we welcome people in our services ("Maybe this is your first time at church, maybe it's your first time in a long time; you are welcome here just as you are"), to what illustrations I use in my talks. And we have seen God bring those who were disenfranchised by the church as well as church-virgins through our doors.

There are some dangers to this strategy, however. Like marital divorc?s, many people who have been burned by the church in the past come needing spiritual, emotional, and even psychological healing. It takes a lot of time to help them sort through it. It's not an easy calling, and along the way I'm aware that TNL has burned people and become the very sort of church some people had left in the past. But our failures cannot deter us from reaching out to church divorc?s; there are just too many to ignore.

What about your church? Is your mission focused on the church virgins? Are you really just trying to reach people with no church experiences? Or do you desire to attract and heal the jaded and disenfranchised? Like me, are you someone who was jaded by the church and now leading one? How has that changed how you lead? I'm wondering if others agree that the church needs to spend more effort going after divorc?s and not just virgins.

Dave Terpstra is Teaching Pastor of The Next Level Church in Denver, Colorado and a regular contributor to Leadership Journal.

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at December 5, 2005 | Comments (11) | TrackBack

October 9, 2005

Erwin McManus at Catalyst: Formulas Don't Work

The following is from Jennifer Oxford, one of our Leadership team in Atlanta for the Catalyst Conference.

Erwin McManus took stage and continued to expound upon the very clear message of the entire Catalyst event...that it's not about formulas...the church, I mean. That there are no formulas that will enable a church to structurally meet every person's needs. Currently, when a new believer joins a church they are plugged into the structure where the church needs them most. They are discipled and led in ways that make them all look the same. For people outside of the church, who inherently know (and cling to the fact that) we are all unique, the sameness of the church, and the structure that they are potentially being asked to fit into doesn't work.

God made us each with our own passions, desires, visions and gifts. As with any Erwin message I've heard before (which sums a total of three including this one--all of which I have cherished by listening to and sharing the CDs long after the live version) he hits many different topics all in the same vein, and addresses them all singly to culminate in a full circle message.

Erwin underlined the idea that in order for a church to meet the needs of such a diverse group it needs to give up being so structured around what a church "needs" to look like, or the programs it "ought" to have or the formulas that it "should" use. He shared stories of his daughter and son to demonstrate on a small scale how different people in the same family (i.e., body of Christ) have been made. Mia is kind-hearted and filled with mercy; she feels badly if she doesn't kiss and hug every stuffed animal in her bedroom good night, for she might hurt one of their feelings. His son demonstrates a gift of maturity and wisdom beyond his years, in some senses, and has the gift of great foresight, offering his dad reasons why certain actions in his hockey game might not be the best because they "won't matter in 20 years." Erwin also presented some pretty cool film-like videos from the Mosaic team hitting home the message that we need to look outside our safe structures and limit what a Christian looks like (just like ourselves, of course!) in order to be Christ to a hurting world.

Another thing he said really resonated with me. It concerns a world the church has been using quite often lately. It sounds like a good word (probably in the same way the world uses the word "peace" to mean different things that Jesus would mean) but ultimately implies things that we don't really mean to mean. The word is revelant. Erwin said that the church tries too hard to be relevant. He expounded that the word in itself implies that someone else has already arrived or done something; that anyone thereafter must link or join to. Anyone after the first has to also find ways to add on some value to the foundation already built. He said that the church (who has all of the power of Christ, and inherently the ability to do anything in God's will) should never try to be relevant. Instead the church should be setting the curve for the culture to follow. Wouldn't it be great if the church was doing so many great things that the culture took notice and was in hot pursuit to add on to what we were doing? I agree: Jesus was not relevant, he was real, he was revolutionary. He was not connected to anything else, except the Father, and that is what made him so much more than anything that was, or is, relevant.

Next he moved on to the thought that we only have churches that look like ourselves. Whomever we are, we only invite people to join in our lives that look, talk, act like us. One church sought Erwin out saying of their 5,000 all-white members, they didn't know how they could start seeing diversity. He asked them if they had any friends who were of different races. From the blank stares he apparently got, I guessed the answer was no. He offered them the idea that if they only wanted to do church, and not LIFE with peole of other races, then the church they were trying to build was a fake. If they weren't willing to allow diversity into their lives, why would their church be any different?

A final video summed up all of these ideas so well. In fact, I heard people talking about its impact while lunching at Blimpie's afterward. The video featured a rock star who was all consumed with himself and couldn't see others as anything but a way to get things done for himself. (Note: He symbolized the church). He was not truly interested in others except for when he could see their talents as useful to him.

Enter a little girl who told him that he should be nice to others. Without giving away too much of the story (in case you see it), the pop star sees in the little girl a way to become truly selfless and provide for her in a way that only he can (and we know this by the way the video plays out). He is able to serve her with gifts from his heart that he didn't even know he had. Seekers and others who observe the church are not the only ones who will benefit from a church that seeks to use gifts from the heart, rather than formulaic systems as ways to attract and plug people in.

One final note: this conference has been great. I've been very, very pleased with the respect that I see from the attendees for the evangelistic forefathers, while also not being afraid to cast their own visions and chart new waters, and return us to thoughts of simply serving others as a way of doing church, and loving others into Jesus' arms. I love it! And I suspect that Jesus does too.

Jen Oxford
in Atlanta

Posted by UrL Scaramanga at October 9, 2005 | Comments (4) | TrackBack