The Next Evangelicalism

I loved this clip - it is a cool opportunity to sit in on a conversation with some great Asian-American Christian thinkers and leaders. Soong Chan had some really cool thoughts to challenge us with, in particular realizing how captive our thinking, our theology and our churches are to Western thought.

I'm definitely adding this to my "to-read" list.

Interview: Soong Chan Rah from Eugene Cho on Vimeo.

Craig Gross & Being the Church in Sin City

Thought this was a really cool snippet of what Craig and The Strip Church are doing to be the Church in Las Vegas.


Craig Gross on Ministry in Sin City from Url Scaramanga on Vimeo.

Thoughts...

Interview with author Ron Martoia [Part 2]

...continued

5. I found in a simple google search a number of overly-demonizing critiques of your work. How do we work to be the change in our church communities and handle the often 'demonizing' accusations of those who disagree?

Yes great question and yes I am a reincarnation of the devil himself apparently according to those website along with a host of others you and I know. I think gentleness is the only road on this one. Stages of human development and faith development tell us that you can't grasp a different level of development other than your own center of gravity. So I don't have hope for others to just jump in head first. But I do think there are some very well place questions we can ask that really put people in a place of evaluating whether or not the Christianity they are defending is the real deal, their personalized construction overlaid with all sorts of baggage, or a modernistic version that has canonized the way we have been doing it the last 200 years as THE way. We have to ask really good questions about the core issues and the outcomes we are getting.

6. Others who criticize your work say you analyze the problems well and it resonates with them, but you offer few solutions. It seems to me that your work intentionally offers a great framework for us to take and adapt in our context and sphere of influence. What do you say?

Well you are apparently the careful reader (lol)! Here is the deal, everyone wants in the box packaged answers. That is a product of the assembly line industrial revolution. We have been doing that for some time. Go to conferences get the in the box small group stuff, or evangelism training package or the usher greeter training kit.... you know what I mean. So people want more of the same. But if we haven't learned anything in the last 100 years haven't we learned that all the in the box programs really haven't brought deep lasting life change? I am convinced that indigeniety is the key. You need some sound processes that you indigenize in your local context in ways that work with who you and your leadership team are for the ethos of your church and the people you are trying to reach. One size does not fit all in fact one size means it fits everyone poorly. So I try and avoid the platitudinous prescriptions that people are always pressing for.

7. If you were asked to boil the whole of Scripture down to its most basic elements, what would those be?

We are imago dei creatures infected as we are, and the good news is that shalom wholeness and wellness is available to every single person which reverses that infection. Our role on the planet is to broker that shalom wholeness and bring everything back to the original edenic state. That includes me, others, and the entire creation.

8. If you could mentor us in only a few sentences, what would you say to young leaders in the church of the U.S?

Don't let anyone convince you to do reruns, do overs or keep doing the way we have always done it. Reflect and seek interior quiet more than you do. Help people navigate liminal space more than pump them full of doctrine. Give up monologue and engage in dialogue. The million dollar skill set into the 21st century will be dealing with great emotional process in your own life and the lives of those around you. It is the #1 I'm being asked about these days and one of the main things I am talking about.

Thank you so much Ron for taking the time to not only answer my questions but also to speak into our lives.

If you haven't read his books, they are a must read on your list. You can find out more about Ron Martoia and some of his current projects on his Velocity Culture site.

Thoughts?

Interview with author Ron Martoia [Part 1]

I recently got the opportunity to send some questions to Ron Martoia for the benefit of all the readers of Tomorrow's Church. Ron has written a number of books and articles, but his most recent, Transformational Architecture, has been a really good read for me. It is both stimulating and challenging - I highly recomend it. Ron is on a mission to recapture our understanding of God, to be fuller and to help us regain our voice in today's culture. Enjoy.

1. Ron, what has God been speaking to you about lately?

I guess there are a few things that have been occupying my thoughts these days. 1. The need for us to engage a new transformational model of life change. All our information exchange is apparently not getting it done...lives aren't being changed if Gallup and Barna are even close to correct. 2. We need to figure out how to revoice Christianity. By revoice I mean what Karen Armstrong alludes to in The Great Transformation. We are known for being legalistic (think Dave Kinnaman's research in UnChristian) and narrow. How do we revoice and reposition our following Jesus in a way that is inclusive and compelling? 3. I am more convinced than ever we need a blending of kataphatic and apophatic spirituality, in fact this is the focus or the book I am working on right now.

2. For those that have not yet read Static or Transformational Architecture, how would you summarize those works into a couple of sentences.

Static was an effort to deal with 5 big static creating terms and reframe into a larger story the common fall-redemption story so common in evangelicalism, a story that makes it sound like the gospel exists to get people to heaven. Instead I suggest a creation-fall-redemption-restoration paradigm that starts the story of God with imago dei of Gen 1 instead of the fall of Gen 3. Kind of neat to start the story where God starts it huh? TA was an effort to take that bigger framing story and put it on the ground in spiritual conversations. A sort of postmodern...can I say the word....ugh...evangelism. Hate that word. But the point of TA is to help people rethink God, the goal of relationship with God and how to enter that from a variety of new vantage points...like the drive we all have to be god, and the propensity to see God in creation.

3. The challenge to find the 'fuller' narrative of God is a beautiful opportunity to rethink our dialogue (or lack of) in our culture. How do we take that concept and apply it to the politics of our country? Or do we? The Christian voice exercised in the Democratic process seems to only play to our disadvantage. I think many of my younger generation feel disillusioned by how to play our faith out in a political way. What insights would you offer us?

Boy that is a loaded one but let me make a couple really brief observations. 1. Jesus' interaction with the politics of the day as a mechanism of change for the masses didn't seem to be a high agenda item for him. 2. While I think we need to work all we can for a more just society I wonder what models Jesus left us that invite us to plunge in neck deep to the political process. I struggle with answering that well.

4. Your description of 1P (first person), 2P (second person) and 3P (third person) views of God was really eye opening. I had not previously considered how I unintentionally interact with and perceive God. What are some ways you engage the 1P and 3P views of God in your own journey?

I often do field gaze mediation, a kind of eyes open centering practice that is a very 3P practice. My 1P experiences are more of me learning to realize this person sitting across from me is imago dei. They are "breath of God" creatures. What does this mean to how I love, interact, not judge them? Loving them as self is a 1P practice. Not loving them as I love my self that is very egoic. But loving them as if they were self...and they are...I'm imago dei and so are they. This is a daily practice I engage, and has it ever challenged me, uncovered my impure motives, nastiness, and how self centered I am.

...more to come tomorrow.

Living Faithful

So do not worry about tomorrow. Let tomorrow worry about itself. Living faithfully is a large enough task for today.

Jesus of Nazereth, Matthew 6.34


I have been re:reading the Gospels as of late, re:finding Jesus' teachings and re:evaluating his interactions with his culture. And as I read about God's care for the birds of the air and the lilies of the field, it challenged me on a personal level, as it relates to the church of tomorrow.

I like to think that this blogging effort here on Tomorrow's Church is about dreaming of what the Church should be and could be in the future. But, it is plenty about worry for me, worrying we've messed it up too much, worried we've maimed the voice of Jesus' teachings, worried that we must re:found ourselves in the person of Jesus - worried.

Seems so silly doesn't it? The Church is the Bride of Christ, could not be mine - God's hand has been authoring this redemption story, not mine. I did not start this story and I can not end it either. I have a part to play, but it is not universal and beckons me to live a humble and faithful life today! Gandhi was so right when he said we must be the change we seek.

Living faithfully is a huge undertaking and enough work for today. Perhaps on some levels we have over-strategized, over-criticized, over-amplified the need for 'tomorrow-thinking' and under-delivered on today. We always want the bigger, the grandiose, the keys of knowledge about the future - yet we fall considerable short on the simplicity of Jesus' teachings. Loving our neighbor as ourselves is one such example and a great starting point for today.

I want to be the change I seek. And though I'm not advocating abandoning this blog or saying we should not plan and dream about the future, I am saying it should come with a heavy dose of humility and reality. A reality that God's in control, God can be trusted and God has not promised us tomorrow but has given us today to live faithfully within.

I've got a good start, but a long way to go in being this and doing it faithfully - you?

Kill the Clergy! [Part 2]

Yes, I took a long time in coming back to finish Part 2 of this thought process - my apologies. You can read Part 1 here and catch back up on where I was going with this, but I've been thinking about this a lot lately. And with saying that, I'm nervous I won't be able to fully articulate what I'm feeling, but will do my best and look to hear your input.

I believe a key in killing the terminology of clergy and ridding ourselves of the separation between clergy and laity is no longer using the word 'pastor.' Wait...what? Let me explain...

1st - We are all pastors and we all have pastoral roles to play in our families, work places and circle of friends. We are all called into the priesthood of God's Kingdom (mission) through our marriage with Christ and the Body. Thus we all have responsibility in loving, leading and caring for those we are gifted with the opportunity to have relationship with.

2nd - Because we don't realize the 1st, we have done a poor job of fulfilling our role. I believe we are all theologians too, though most would never call themselves a theologian, we are nonetheless so. Because we are human we occupy a unique space in creation, being fully physical and fully spiritual. You can be no more 'less human' than you can be 'less spiritual', which is exactly why throughout history humanity has struggled to grasp truth and either define or deny the existence of Deity. We are all theologians and we are all pastors and we need to start doing a better job of them.

3rd - This has all lead to an unhealthy and unbiblical set of expectations for those burdened with the title of 'pastor'. I have written about this aspect on my other blog (here), but when pastors become superstars and anything more than just human (another person trying to figure out this journey of life), pain and hypocrisy are inevitable. When Catholic Priests molest young boys, it is not a sign that they weren't 'holy men,' it's just a sign of the same broken human condition we all share. And it is the same when a pastor has a moral failure - they were never more than human, though we allowed them to be, and in a lot of cases, we thrusted them onto the pedestal ourselves. We shouldn't be 'more devastated' by their failure, we should be just as devastated by our own, remembering that sin is sin and we all fall short.

4th - So we must move from the title of pastor, to an understanding of leadership and influence. We need to have a more holistic understanding of what being a pastor means. We are all called to be disciple-makers and some are called to be apostles, some prophets, some teachers, some administrative, but we are all called. And changing our terminology will free the leaders of our local church communities to fit the role God designed for them and their passions. They will not have to conform to all the vague, unbiblical and unbalanced expectations that are encompassed in the title of 'pastor.' Instead, they will be free to lead us as they follow God and His calling for them - no longer having to pretend to be the marrying-burying-teaching-preaching-hospital-visiting-counseling-pastor the Church has come to expect of them.

So many more thoughts come to mind, but I'll stop here and ask you for your thoughts...

Defining 'Missional'

Micheal Frost added this to the conversation on 'what it means to be missional.'



In an interview on The Missional Blog, Frost said

our christology should lead to our missiology which in turn will lead to our ecclesiology

That is an interesting way of guiding the conversation. When we come to grips with the Jesus found in the gospels, it defines our mission as we translate it into our lives, our world and our culture. Thus, church is an outgrowing and a byproduct of moving from Jesus to His mission for us. I agree with him that many times we start with how to do church and then try to figure out mission as a byproduct of that.

I said this in the 'comments' the other day, but I think you could define missional as living in a way to stay outside the 'stifling equilibrium' of our traditions, denominations and doctrines. Never abandoning them, never abolishing them, but as Jesus did - fulfilling them - renewing them and their meaning in our lives.

In other words it is recognizing the tendencies of our human condition to seek comfort and predictability and finding ways to live continually outside of that. Finding ways to live outside of our own might or ability and instead, engaged in the adventure of depending on God and following his design for your life.

Thoughts...

Missional Fruit (2)

I am writing in response to Dan Kimball's article, "Missional Misgivings" (Refer to Kevin's last post). Although he gave us some good things to consider, overall the article discouraged me. The only 'misgiving' I had was toward his idea of "effective" ministry.
Dan begins his post with this statement: "Small, indigenous churches are getting lots of attention, but where's the fruit"?
Right here, Dan. I am the fruit.
I grew up in a fairly large Lutheran congregation. In high school, I went to youth group at a separate mega-church downtown. It was fun, it was flashy, and it was cool. Now, mind you, I am not here to bash mega-churches. I know they minister to large numbers of people, and I praise God for that. However, for someone who attended church her entire life, surrounded by a huge community of Christians, I felt alone. How is it that I attended a church with hundreds of people, yet knew only a handful? I went to church, I heard a great message, I got pumped up by the rock-band worship team, and went back to my normal life at home. I could skip a few Sundays, but I didn't need to worry- no one would notice. I was one of the hundreds. A small fish in a big sea. I was a member of a seemingly large support system, but did not feel supported.
In college, after much searching, I found a 'small, indigenous' church in downtown Spokane. For the first time I understood what Jesus meant when He talked about the Body of Christ. I felt like I was part of a family. People there were warm and inviting. I developed meaningful relationships with people, and was held accountable by my brothers and sisters. Church began to spill over into my week. It was no longer a Sunday event. It was a lifestyle.
This church was not perfect by any means. But it was here that I learned the importance of putting people first. It was here that my faith was most nurtured by the relationships I had.
Numbers? Small, but steady. There was growth, but nothing in comparison to the mega-congregation down the street. However, when we start looking at numbers to define the "success" of a church, we are missing the point.
In his article Dan Kimball, referring to one particular missional church, explains, "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."
Alright Dan. Now I am overjoyed that conversions are happening left and right in that city's megachurches. I rejoice for that. However, it seems that he is discounting that missional church's ministry. He says himself that it is a "wonderful community that serves the homeless." It is a community that is taking giant steps in faith to serve the lost and forgotten. I have been to many churches over the years, and most steer clear of homeless ministry. It is uncomfortable, and takes a great deal of boldness to step out of your community and enter theirs. Building relationships with the homeless can be difficult. They do not give their trust easily, and most have been broken and abused in unspeakable ways. It's a whole different kind of ministry. We cannot judge a ministries success based on the number of people "we" convert. Last time I checked it is the Lord that changes the heart, not ourselves. We do not always get the privilege to see the fruit of our labor. Most of the time, hearts are not changed in an instant. The Spirit moves, but in His own time. Perhaps the church Dan speaks of has not "multiplied" in 15 years, but they are continuing in their ministry to the homeless and are being faithful to that call. Who's to say God is not stirring hearts in preparation for a later conversion?
Numbers do not determine effective ministry. Do we give Jesus a hard time for choosing only 12 disciples? Would it not have been much more effective to pour into 100 disciples who could disperse and spread the good news? How dare he assume 12 could do the job. Right?
Now I say this to stress a point. I am not saying that large groups are ineffective either. What I am saying is that Jesus knew how important it was to invest in relationships. He wanted a small group of disciples he could...wait for it...disciple. He wanted to develop a deep and meaningful relationship of trust with these men. He knew that the more he poured into them, the more they could pour into others. Clearly it worked. Open the Gospels and look at the great things these men did in faith.

As Kevin stated in his response, and I think he hits it right on, "I think the greater question is, "Who is your church trying to reach?" The answer to that question can lead to harder, less traveled paths of ministry. It can also lead to a more relationally based ministry that is hard to quantify in attendance, but is no less impacting."

I feel like there is so much more to say on this topic, but I want to stop here and ask for your thoughts.
I want to remind you again- my point is not to condemn one church model and praise another.
I do think Dan's article makes for an interesting discussion. I think it's good to be in conversation about such things...

Missional Fruit

The following are thoughts from Dan Kimball on the 'not-yet-proven' status of the missional movement.

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.

You can read the whole article here.

He raises some interesting points, but I think the greater question is, "Who is your church trying to reach?" The answer to that question can lead to harder, less traveled paths of ministry. It can also lead to a more relationally based ministry that is hard to quantify in attendance, but is no less impacting.

Thoughts?

Our Space in History...

So some scholars are calling our era, our gift of time on a earth 'The Great Emergence.'

What that means is yet to be fully known, but we all seem to know that change is not only needed, but coming. I've stumbled on some great articles about this lately (here and here) and wanted to share this quote.

"The duty, challenge, joy, and excitement of the church and for the Christians who compose her, then, is in discovering what it means to believe that the kingdom of God is within one and in understanding that one is thereby a pulsating, vibrating bit in a much grander network. Neither established human authority nor scholarly or priestly discernment alone can lead, because, being human, both are trapped in space/time and thereby prevented from a perspective of total understanding. Rather, it is how the message runs back and forth, over and about, the hubs of the network that it is tried and amended and tempered into wisdom and right action for effecting God’s will." - Phyllis Tickle

Thoughts?

Missional [Part 3]

I'm re-posting one of Mark Batterson's recent post, as it adds to the Missio conversation. It adds to the 3 phases in Missional [Part 2].

------------------------------------------------

Imitation is Suicide

I just read the latest issue of Outreach magazine and the feature was an interview with Erwin McManus, pastor of Mosaic in LA. He said something that was so profound. Really made me think. "I think a lot of pastors have a dream that matches the life of the pastor who is the living the dream they want." Man, that stopped me in my tracks.

I think there is a such a temptation to copy when it comes to ministry. I wrestle with it as much as anyone else. I think we need models. I've got my fair share, including Erwin McManus. But I remember reading something Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote in Self-Reliance: "There is a time in every man's education that he arrives at the conviction that imitation is suicide. He must take himself for better or for worse."

I think there are two simple principles that ought to guide us:

1) Keep Learning.

2) Be Yourself.

At some point, most of us stop learning and start copying. It's so much easier. We stop living out of right-brain imagination and start living out of left-brain memory. And that is when we stop creating the future and start repeating the past.

Just a simple reminder. There never has been and never will be anyone like you. And that isn't a testament to you. It's a testament to the God who created you.

-----------------------------------------------

Your thoughts...

a united Body.

There has been a reoccurring question tugging at my heart lately. There are so many of us that feel a pull towards Church-planting. I understand that God equips every person with a unique vision, and I understand the purpose behind church planting. I feel the call myself. Yet, I often wonder if we get too focused on starting from scratch. We want something new, something better. If every one felt this way, we would never build community. Sometimes I wonder if the church is getting too separated. I wonder if our unity is fading. We cannot forget the importance of bridging existing communities together. I'm not talking about creating one giant mega-church here. I'm talking about working together and sharing together- recognizing our identity in the larger Body of Christ. Should this be our primary focus?
Let's chew on this. I want to hear your thoughts.

Community: The Human Connection

Something most of us share as human beings is a sense of responsibility to be involved in the things around us. Rick Warren touches on this topic in his book, The Purpose Driven Life.

The other day my friend Ouida Bradford and I were talking about the recent popularity of different social movements like Rosa Loves, Junky Car Club, and Invisible Children.

The big picture behind these movements is that they are not only bringing awareness to the social injustices that are occurring in our neighborhoods and around the globe, but they are connecting people to other people.

As the church body we are involved in social projects around our community, our country, and our world. As a church we are interested in meeting the needs we see around us and whether redeemed or not, there is a chance our neighbors, co-workers, employers and city governments are interested in meeting those needs too.

There has never been a better time in history for the church to begin to do life with the community around it. What will that look like?

Kill the Clergy! [Part 1]

Okay, not actually kill the clergy - let's just kill the terminology. Tomorrow’s Church has to rid itself of the separation between clergy and laity.

When the Early Church became an institution, lines began being drawn between the trained and the untrained. Separation of those who can perform the religious duties of the new religion of the Roman Empire under Constantine and those who could not. The reformation restored some of the faulty practical theology that transpired, namely putting the scripture of the bible into the common language. However, we are due for a 2nd Reformation.

As I’ve heard it said before, the 1st Reformation took the scripture out of the clergies hands and placed it in the hands of everyone – a 2nd Reformation is needed that takes the ministry out of the clergies hands and calls everyone into their God-given roles.

Frank Viola said it this way, “What the Reformers failed to do was to recover the corporate dimension of the believing priesthood. They restored the doctrine of the believing priesthood soteriologically—i.e., as it related to salvation. But they failed to restore it ecclesiological—i.e., as it related to the church.”

I believe that the separation only feeds the weak, consumerist Christianity we have throughout America today. People come to a ‘service,’ are seated as if it were a show, lead in worship by professional musicians like a concert and taught by a trained speaker – there is a lot of entertainment built into Sunday gatherings. 90% of Christians only attend a church related event on Sundays, according to a survey I made up for this post. Seriously though, most people only go to Church once a week, which builds this false separation of Church, work, family, hobbies, etc – instead of it being a Christian faith woven through out our weekly activities in the lives we live.

If all followers of Jesus are his ‘priesthood’ we should seek to define it better. And not just define it better, but begin bringing it to be. We give a lot of lip service to the topic, but have failed to realize it. This is why Jesus died for us – not for a heaven ticket – but to restore our connection with God. That all followers would have a connection with the living God and a life radically affected by that reality. You know - all that 'the Kingdom of God is at hand' stuff.

How would it look?

coloring outside the lines.

We are getting farther and farther away from the need to interact with others. One could choose to live his life without face-to-face contact and most likely get by. With online banking, online shopping, meal-delivery services, instant messaging, Redbox dvd rentals and the like....who needs people?
However, though the means by which we are relational may be changing, we are clearly not losing the desire to be connected with people. Myspace, Facebook, blogging, Twitter....social networking is flourishing.
We have a desire to bond like never before. A desire to be a part of people's lives. A desire to know the when, the where, the why, the how. It may border on the line of ridiculousness, but it is telling of our thirst for relationships.
Whether or not we are fans of this new phase of online networking, we must look at it at face value. What does this say about our society? What does this say about our culture? What does this mean for the Church? I promise you, it will and already is, affecting the way we do ministry. We may have to find new mediums to reach people, especially the younger generation. We do not want to be 'of the world', but we are called to participate in it just as Christ did. He was never a "worldly" man. His Kingdom was in heaven, but He came to reign on this earth and give 'Kingdom eyes' to those still in darkness. Jon Foreman explains, "This world is where I breathe let it never be called home". We do not belong to this world. We belong to the Lord through and through. However, while we are here we are given the opportunity to share this truth with those who are unaware. Christ lived among the outcasts of society. He befriended them, and he loved them. Did he participate in their sins? No, but he invited them to live a new life that would bring them freedom and joy.
We are made in the image of a creative God. What are some ways we should be thinking outside of the box when it comes to ministry?

Church:Community

I believe that there is a need for the church to be involved in the community. Secular community. For no purpose other than being involved and building relationships. I'm sure you probably believe that too, but what does it look like? This is an extension of a conversation I had a few weeks ago with my good friend, Justin Chandler. Justin is the student pastor of theBurn at Hope Community Church.

Most churches I have been apart of have community events like a church BBQ or a halloween alternative and members are encouraged to invite their neighbors to events at the church.

Lets be honest. Most Church members probably haven't had more than a casual conversation with their neighbors. There's no relationship there, an invite to the annual church halloween alternative would just be awkward. Besides, their kids are probably already out having doing wicked things with all of the other vile 5th grades dressed as pirates and ghosts. (Sorry for the sarcasm, halloween is still and will probably remain as one of my top 3 holidays. excommunicate me.)

Secondly, these are typically church events geared to church people. Which is where the church has really succeeded. A big part of the Christian idea is building community within the body of Christ. However, I think we need to be more intentional about being a part of the community outside of the church. A great example is what my friend Justin is doing with Hope Community Church. Every year they have a church BBQ and in the classic tradition, members are encouraged to invite their neighbors. This year was different.

While Justin and his students were picking up trash on Commercial street he had the idea to have the annual church BBQ there. So they got all of the required permits and had a block-party on Commercial Street this summer. The business owners and community surrounding the area really appreciated it and now Justin, Hope, and theBurn have taken a continual active part in the community there and are building relationships with the people living, working, and investing in the area.

The fact is that this whole church movement. The story of Christianity-is about relationships. You, me, our neighbors, our community, doing life together.