bob.blog

Anne Rice and the Not-Yet-As-Beautiful-As-She-Will-Be-Bride

A number of years ago, Anne Rice, author of Interview with The Vampire and other books, became a Christian. For her it was a rediscovery of a childhood faith. The writer of numerous books of erotica and dark, occult fiction had found a home again in the Catholic church. But, apparently a short-lived home.
She's now renouncing Christianity.

She said on Facebook recently:
"For those who care, and I understand if you don't: Today I quit being a Christian. I'm out. I remain committed to Christ as always but not to being "Christian" or to being part of Christianity. It's simply impossible for me to "belong" to this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group. For ten years, I've tried. I've failed. I'm an outsider. My conscience will allow nothing else."

When I read this, I knew that

a. A lot of "anti-institutional", free-range Christians would applaud
and
b. Anne was missing the same point many of them do.

In one sense, I'm glad Anne can distinguish between Religion and Jesus. Those two things need to be disconnected. But in another sense, I'm saddened that she's trying to disconnect Jesus from His Body, because those two things never are.

I want to have grace for Anne and I certainly wish her well. I hope she does remain committed to Jesus. But, in thinking about this, I can't help but think that yes- It would be wonderful if all of our families, groups, networks never had disagreements or problems- if all the folks in them were just as we wished them... but then how would we grow? Where would be the opportunity to grow in patience, forgiveness, love? To opt out on account of the difficulty in a community is to miss both the point of the difficulty AND the community- especially in a redemptive community.

What is Jesus trying to do in the world? Get individual butts through the goal posts of heaven? Or create a redeemed community to live in a renewed creation in relationship with the One who saved them? The point of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus isn't so much "me" as it is WE. And WE are a people in process.
Of course there are hypocrites and hostile people in the church... because there are people in the church. People on a long journey towards Christlikeness.

In some ways, when I read Anne's statement I think about someone looking at an elementary school and saying "I can't have anything to do with you people because you don't know astrophysics and advanced calculus."
Jesus calls sinners into the community He's creating, and all who hear and answer that call are in varying states of growth and character-change. To expect maturity the moment everyone walks in the door is both unreasonable and lacking in the very grace Anne seems to want the church to show to others.

"Quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious"... Well, what else could anyone expect? Did we not hear Jesus when He said, "I come to call sinners, not the righteous?" Did we think He was kidding?

Our job is to follow Him along side and as a part of the Community He is creating. And being thankful for the grace He daily shows us in our "in-processness" means showing that grace to others as well. Even others "in" the church. Because to love Jesus is to love the people He loves- both the "lost sheep" and the "found Bride" that He is in the process of making beautiful.

Grace on our part looks like trying not to be upset that He's still got a ways to go.

Be Careful Little Ears...

This post by Ernest Goodman over at Missions Misunderstood captures pretty well both how we at Evergreen want to view Scripture and how we DON'T want to teach it to our children...

Bible Stories

Growing up in church, kids always got special treatment. At my church, for example, there was some unwritten rule giving all adults in church “special” permission to “discipline” us as though we were their own kids. Doyle Braden was an arm-grabber, as I recall. Mr. Lettow would flick the backs of our heads. Sean’s dad pinched ears. Hard.

I digress.

Church kids didn’t have to listen to sermons. We were allowed to draw on the backs of bulletins and take naps. The sermon was for “grownups.” The kids, well, we were told “Bible stories.”

I remember my Sunday School teacher pulling out the flannelgraph and using felt-cutouts of camels, caves, and men with beards retell (okay- summarize) the stories of the Bible. Noah and the Ark. The Fiery Furnace. The Good Samaritan. Great stories, all told in kid-friendly ways. You know, like on Sesame Street.

And that was the problem. Our little kid brains had a hard time telling the difference between Bible stories (which, I presume our teachers believed to have really happened or, in the case of the Samaritan, to have really been told by Jesus) and every other story we had been told. After all, David and Goliath had a giant, but so did Jack and the Beanstalk. Jesus was resurrected by the power of God, Sleeping Beauty was revivified by the Kiss of a Prince. To us, it was all kind of the same.

To make matters worse, our teachers often oversimplified the stories, diluting them into moralistic tales that they were never meant to be. Adam and Eve, Jacob and Esau, and Achan, taught us that is was bad to tell a lie. David and Jonathan showed us that sharing made us a good friend. Jonah was a lesson in obedience. Sunday morning Bible stories were like lo-tech Saturday morning cartoons. Only boring.

Looking back, I recognize that each “story” was an opportunity to share the gospel; to demonstrate our need for a savior and to recognize God’s provision in Christ. But instead, we learned that sharing and using good manners made Jesus happy. As we grew up, those stories were left behind for more practical topical Bible studies and the abstract “meat” of Pauline theology.

Of course, we eventually learned that The Three Little Pigs, The Seven Dwarfs, and all the other protagonists in our childhood stories weren’t real. How were we to know that their Bible story counterparts were?

I suppose what I’m getting at is that we need to be careful how we communicate things. The Bible isn’t God’s Cautionary Tales. Sure, there are lots of examples in the history of the Creator’s interaction with creation, but there’s more to it than that. Everything recorded in the text points to humanity’s relationship to God, made right only through the life, death, and real resurrection of Jesus. The way we talk about that history will affect how it is understood by those we tell.

The Vital Question I haven't been asking...

Woke up at 2:30 this morning (of course) realizing that it's been awhile since I asked anyone that most vital of questions...

"So, what's your story?"

We have "history" as a core value in our community- partly to help us remember that we're not new- that though we started our church 6 years ago, we're really a part (and certainly not the latest/greatest part) of something that's been going on for 2,000 years. 

But we also want that value to remind us of something else- and that's people's individual history, their story, and its importance. 

Too often I find myself trying to connect with new acquaintances by asking a few ice-breaker questions, and then falling back on old reliable: Telling them about me. Or my iPhone. Usually my iPhone... But I digress. 

On Sundays. as I try to connect with people who are visiting our community, the same dynamic often happens- though instead of telling them about myself, I'm trying to tell them about Evergreen, ask if they have any questions... and totally missing the most important way I could connect with them. 

I knew a guy once that really struggle to build relationships and friendships. He was a nice enough guy, but no one seemed very interested in talking with him. And there was a simple reason- he was a one-trick pony, conversationally. Anything you said would trigger a story he had about something that at one time had happened to him. They were often funny enough stories- but in lieu of anything else, any other personal interest in the other person, they were a conversation (and so a relationship) killer.

So last night, I realized... I've been becoming a version of that. Eager to tell people about me and mine, less eager to ask them about them and theirs (so to speak...)

I need to remember- there are a number of things that people want to know about me or about my community. But the thing they want to know first, and above everything else is: Do you care about who I am? 

Should the Church Meet My Needs?

“In a recent survey of 1,000 church attenders, respondents were asked, ‘Why does the church exist?’ According to 89 percent, the church’s purpose was ‘to take care of my family’s and my spiritual needs.’ Only 11 percent said the purpose of the church is ‘to win the world for Jesus Christ.’” - Greg Laurie, senior pastor of Harvest Christian Fellowship in Riverside, California.

For the past few years, there's been a substantial push back to the idea of the church as a meeter of needs. This generally takes the form of deriding the idea of the church as a "provider of religious goods and services" (to quote my friend Doug Pagitt, the first I heard of many, including myself, who have used this phrase).
And as far as that goes, I'm in total agreement. When the Church is seen primarily as an institution which caters to the felt needs of myself and my family, something vital gets lost as communities get sucked into an attractional cycle of tweaking programs and message to fit fads and tastes.
But more and more, I'm beginning to see the opposite end of the spectrum as just as much an overstatement and disservice to the true meaning and mission of the church.

I think of it this way: if the Church's mission is to be a sign and foretaste of the present and coming (already and not yet) Kingdom of God, then it's imperative that needs be met- that's part of the artwork, the essence of being a sign and foretaste.

In other words, one of the reasons we feed the poor, aside from the fact that people are simply hungry, is to point to what God ultimately does and will do in Jesus. We care for the environment for the same way- not just because it's good stewardship, but also because we are drawing a picture for people of the redemption and renewal of all things that began to come to fruition on Easter morning with the Resurrection of Jesus and will culminate someday in the Reign of Jesus.

So if all that is true, I think it's imperative that the church be meeting needs for people not just "outside" but inside as well. Not as a church growth strategy ("Get the kids and you get the parents!") but rather as a means of showing the mutual love and concern we are commanded to show (Gal 6:10) AND a means of being the sign and foretaste of Jesus' work we are meant to be. In the Kingdom, needs are meant- financial, emotional, whatever. So then, that same reality should be reflected in our communities.

The difference, I think, lies in the "how" as well as in the attitudes we cultivate as members of a community.

First, the how. If our primary strategy of meeting needs is one of professionals being paid to make things happen, things may indeed happen, but two unintended side-effects are likely to ensue. In the professional-driven church where nothing "official" happens that didn't originate in a staff meeting, where nothing is considered "real ministry" unless a paid staff-member is present, consumerism WILL become the driving factor. Why? Because what we personally have a hand in creating and sustaining we love and nurture. What we merely purchase, we consume. The quickest way to make consumers (not that people don't already have a pretty good head start)is to make ministry the domain and provence of people getting paid to do it. This disempowers people in the community who feel like they have to run everything by somebody "official"- and as we all know, putting someone in the back seat doesn't make a passenger- it makes a back seat driver- someone who grasps for whatever control they can get by judging and complaining about every turn, missed signal, speed-up or slow-down... The quickest way to stop back-seat driving type complaining is to hand someone the wheel.
Of course- there's still a role for people who are paid to free up the majority of their time to serve the community. There are pieces of ministry that take inordinate amounts of time (coordination of large numbers of volunteers, for example) or specialized training (counseling those in crisis is one) that mean if we want to have those things present in our communities, we make room in our budget for them. There's a pretty good argument from Scripture for paying people as well. This isn't an apologia for paid staff, but I think it's important to remember- that often when no one is being tasked with the primary duty to make sure that things are happening in a community, you get the same result as when it's a professional-only atmosphere: nothing much happens.
In when pastors and elders begin to grab a hold of their true main purpose in ministry- as equippers of others to do the work of ministry (Eph 4) that things begin to click.

In terms of attitude, though- it's not enough to think about what attitude to warn against- we have to point people to the positive alternative, and that probably looks like saying early and often: "We as a church are here to meet needs- not from the "top down", but from person to person, as a community." We point people towards the idea that when they see a problem or need, their first instinct shouldn't be complaining or criticizing, but asking if THEY themselves can meet or fix the need/problem. And if they feel unable, the next step is not to pass off to the paid professionals, but to spur conversation in the community about equipping people to do this task that is now becoming apparent as a pressing need.

To sum up:

My overall fear with the idea that the church is not here to meet needs is that while we may be effectively fighting consumerism with language like that, we're probably unintentionally signaling to people that needs that they see WITHIN the community are not a priority or even important. The real solution is to move elders and pastors from being the paid professionals back to the more biblical model of equippers, and to instill in people an attitude that community IS there to meet needs, and they are not just an essential, but THE main part of that.

Forget everything except...

"For I decided that while I was with you I would forget everything except Jesus Christ, the one who was crucified." -St Paul, 1 Cor 2:2

 For me, the last few years of thinking, praying and preaching have largely been an exercise in coming to grips with this thought: forget everything except Jesus Christ, the one who was crucified.

Like many who started off in evangelicalism and especially in youth ministry, the trap of seeing preaching/teaching/pastoring as largely a matter of helping pretty good people become slightly better people is one I fell into face first. For me, it was about "How God Wants Us To Live." The Bible was the Handbook for living and my job was to help people understand what God wanted them to do. 

Oh, sure- there was something about Jesus in there. It's like He was the ticket in to the dance, but it was really all about how you moved and what you did once you were IN.

And I was constantly surprised when that moralistic do-better message failed to capture anyone's heart or move anyone to anything beyond incremental change. My efforts seemed to produce not a group of people so captured by an overwhelming love for a Savior who would lay down His all for them that they would lay down their all for Him, but rather groups of (interestingly enough) slightly guilty, slightly self-satisfied religious people who always berated themselves for not doing better and salved that guilt with the thought that at least they were doing better than those people. Who "those people" were changed over the years. First it was the Catholics, then "liberals" (anyone to the left of us), then finally as this all took on a slightly emergent sheen, "evangelicals" or "fundamentalists" (anyone to the right of us).

At the peak of my frustration with all of this, I was introduced to Tim Keller. As a recovering Calvinist, I was at first a bit leery of the Presbyterian pastor from New York. But in the same way that CS Lewis speaks so well to the secular skeptic, I think Keller speaks to those skeptical of Reformed theology- those who don't want to end up like so many of the bitter Calvinist trolls who seem to populate the corners of the internet. 

At any rate, his assertion that the Bible is not about YOU, but rather about Jesus, about the story of God's redemption and Redeemer was game changing for me. 

Suddenly, my role was not to tell people how to be like various Bible heroes (who really weren't all that heroic if we're going to be honest) and how to do better/more, but to do what Scripture actually did- point them to Jesus, always and only, let their hearts and minds be moved by the Good News of what God has done for them in Christ and allow the Holy Spirit to take that heart movement and alchemize it into Christ-likeness in their lives individually and communally. 

Practically speaking, this means I approach texts (even head-scratching ones from the OT) with the basic questions of "How does this point us to Jesus?" and how does the Gospel answer the questions that people will be asking around this text/issue? We always end up back where we need to be: At Jesus and what He's done for us, and though we often get to what we need to do as a response, the first thing we always need to do is see how His work on our behalf is enough- how Jesus Christ crucified is the answer that leads to all the other answers. 

So that means answering practical questions about things like self-image, success, money, sex with some variation of "Until you are freed from your need for success, a failure you will remain." That is, until we see that in Jesus and His righteous life and sacrificial death imputed to us we have what we need, we will always struggle. As long as we look to other things (in biblical language: idols) to save us and until we put our hope in the only One strong enough to bear it, we'll continue to live lives of either overt unhappiness or, even should we largely get what we are striving for, an undercurrent of "is this all there is"?  

And thus change happens, individually and communally, not when we try harder to do better, but when we are able to lay down the need to do for ourselves what God wants to do for us in Christ, all our little self-salvation projects, and lean more and more into and onto Jesus.

The challenge, on an individual level (and speaking personally, it IS a challenge) is to live this. And on a leadership level to creatively move to this through all my counseling, preaching, teaching. To find 100 different ways to say the same thing. Honestly, I think I've got maybe 5 (some who listen to me preach regularly might think that generous). I need more. 

But... I think I finally know what Paul meant when he said "I decided that while I was with you I would forget everything except Jesus Christ, the one who was crucified." My job isn't to help people understand what God wants them to do. My job is to help them see, understand and be moved by what God has already done. That's the difference between good advice and Good News. Out of that, as they follow the One who has captured their heart, God will speak and I can help them listen, process and respond appropriately- but it all flows first and foremost from the ground of how God is redeeming us and the world through the work of Jesus on our behalf. 

The Pleasure of An Imperfect Community

It's been one of the great joys and pleasures of my life to plant and help pastor the Evergreen Community- not because it's a perfect community, but because it's not.

It's in our "in-processness" that God most shows up (the way the apostle Paul put it is "His grace is perfected in our weakness.") In those moments when we are not the community we hope to be, when our patience with each other is short, when we are struggling just to show up, much less to serve each other- that's when we 1. realize how much we need Jesus and 2. stop leaning on our own coolness and ability to put together a rad community and start crying out to God to show up and make something Kingdom-like in our midst.

Yeah- we're going to annoy the crap out of each other. You are going to hear some bad sermons. Someone will say something stupid on the City or even to your face. People will forget your birthday and occasionally not show up when you need them. It's how community works because it's how life works. But what's present in community that is so often missing from life is... Grace. The very thing that seems to flower and bloom not in our successes but in our failures.

I don't say any of this to encourage you to fail each other or to take community as anything less than the serious commitment it needs to be. BUT- I do hope that in those moments when the sting of friction or restlessness or dissatisfaction seems most potent, you will begin to process it all with the question: what would it look like for the grace of God to show up here? And how should that change my response to this frustration?

Learning from the hard parts of life (and community!) doesn't happen automatically. It takes great intention on our part. The intention to see Jesus even in the crappiest parts of life and ask God: "What do You want to do here?"
And then listen.

Interaction/Review- Tony Jones' "The Teaching of The Twelve"

“The Didache is the most important book you've never read,” starts Tony Jones, in his latest book, The Teaching of the Twelve: Believing & Practicing the Primitive Christianity of the Ancient Didache Community.

And while Tony's examination of this ancient Christian manuscript is engaging and thoughtful, I just don't know if I'd go quite that far. I enjoyed reading this book- well-written, I think well-researched... but the main premise is something I find myself wanting to push back against somewhat.

The Didache, according to The Teaching of the Twelve, records "a primitive Christianity" of about the same era in which the synoptic Gospels were composed, and seemingly unfamiliar with the theology of the Apostle Paul. 

And in that, it's a helpful look at some of the rhythms of the early church. The question, of course, is what can/does that early Christianity mean for us today?

Tony attempts to answer that question as he examines the Didache, by also looking at a small, modern community of Christians who call themselves the Cymbrogi- a house church of sorts which includes Trucker Frank, a friend we've gotten to know from some of Tony's other works. 

The Cymbrogi take from the Didache a very praxis-oriented approach to their walk with Jesus. They are in search of that primitive Christianity that "emphasizes how you live."

Tony writes, "The Didache's vision of communal life in Christ is powerful and potentially transformative. For the Cymbrogi, the Didache's primitive rhythms of faith have changed them personally. Each one of them I've spoken to has professed that the raw, organic Christianity that they find in the Didache and now attempt to practice is exactly what they've been looking for all along." Tony continues, "The Didache offers something of an alternative to what many know of Christianity. The real power of the Didache is its ability to remind us of what is truly important in Christianity: showing the love of Jesus to the world."

Okay... Here's where I start to wonder. 

Joy and frustration...

A good and frustrating (and so maybe good) night for me last night. 

Sunday nights tend to be harder for me as the day is so long. I'm usually at it pretty early, refining my sermon or working on last minute details. And If I've preached, then done something like lead a new people's group, there's not a whole lot left in the tank for Sunday evening. But yesterday I wasn't preaching at our 3rd/evening gathering, so it was a little less of an issue. 

First, the good. Last night I kept Jack, our 5 year old with me in the gathering the whole time. He did (mostly) great. We could probably think of it in terms of thirds. The first third he was excited to be with us (the cookie I promised him helped), he actually read the words and sang aloud (loudly! No discernible tune!) to the first song. And THAT was the highlight of my evening. Seeing Jack engage in what we were doing was wonderful for me- it's not an exaggeration (though maybe an overly-flowery way of saying it) to say my heart swelled with joy to see my son worshiping Jesus.  Probably the highlight of my week. 

Of course, the second third where I was just trying to keep him quiet and the last third where he was almost in tears and saying "I hate it in here!" were a little different story, but... baby steps!

But that wasn't the frustration. 

Slow down...

"In a faster world, maybe we need a slower church."- Leighton Ford

I'm sitting, thinking about these words, thinking about our community, what it means to be the people of God...

Like many, I have a mixed relationship with my evangelical past. There are things I look back on and wish had been done differently. But one thing I don't regret... how much time church took.

Sunday morning we would head to church early for Sunday school, we would eat donuts after (while the adults drank Folgers), we would run and play (or when we were teens, sit and talk) until it was time for worship and then we would head to the sanctuary together. Sometimes it was good, sometimes it was boring... but whatever it was it was something we did together. And after, some would rush off, but I remember- many would linger, talk, enjoy one another's company... 

Maybe it's that now, as a pastor, I'm lost in the details- thinking through what needs to get put away and packed up, trying to talk to so many people I can't really talk to anyone... but these days it all feels so rushed.

Here's one thing I've noticed: When we stay after for lunch together- it's often the same people who stay. And interestingly enough, it's people who seem to have no trouble feeling connected.

Others come late, leave right when things are done and are rarely present to the rest of the community any other times but that narrow band of an hour and a half on Sunday. And, again, interestingly, often those who make a rhythm of coming late and leaving early later eventually complain to me of not feeling a sense of community, of connectedness.

This isn't a poke at or slam on anyone in particular. I just feel this loss of slowness, of languidly enjoying each others' company- maybe it's an airbrushed and idealized picture I'm carrying around in my head, but it just seems like we didn't have as much to do back then, as much to rush off to... and being together seemed more of a priority.

I don't know how to encourage people to come early, to stay late, to help set up and tear down as a shared activity, to endure the same pub food week after week as a sacrificial act of community building, to invest and create the community they long for rather than hoping it just happens... I honestly wish I did. 

But I will say this- I've rarely regretted giving my time to others. To myself, to the internet, to TV and busy work yes. To people, to community, no. 

Virtual Community: Problematic, but maybe not how we think...

I love social media- Twitter, Facebook, etc. I use and enjoy them, and plan to post on some of their positive uses/effects. But for now...

I was there at NPC when Shane Hipps somewhat famously declared that virtual community is "one but not the other", that is, it may be virtual but isn't real community, igniting a flurry of blog posts and comments... 

I know I'm late to the party, and really wanted to jump in on Out of Ur, but this all came down during a blog-slump, and though I had some thoughts, it felt as though others were carrying on the conversation just fine. 

But looking back, I'm not sure anyone quite made the point I wanted to, and I'm rethinking all of this in light of an interview I'm doing tonight with a public radio show on Social Media.

I absolutely dig where Shane is going here and his concern about virtual community- that it may be virtual but it isn't community. My concern however is a little different- I'm pretty sure it is community, and that it's not simply virtual... and therein lies the problem. 

Kimball's Missional Misgivings...

Dan Kimball, a fellow OutofUr contributer, has earned my respect in a number of ways. 

First, as the pastor of a successful "church within a church" he had the guts to admit that ultimately, it doesn't work. New wine in old wineskins never does. 

Second, I appreciate the balance he has brought to the emerging church conversation. Yeah- he's on the more conservative end of the spectrum, and let's be honest- it's a needed voice. (Who speaks prophetically to people more conservatively-minded? Liberals. And who speaks prophetically to people who are more liberally minded? Conservatives. See?)

And lastly, he always sends me comforting Facebook messages when I get myself into little brouhaha's, like over Tony Jones's recent comments on Beliefnet re gay marriage (a Facebook interaction that took place during my recent blog hiatus)

His recent post on Ur asks some good questions of the Missional Church movement. 

I'm all in favor of good questions. And furthermore, I think Dan is asking the right ones (e.g. are people meeting Jesus in "missional" churches).

A couple of thoughts in response, though. 

Dan writes:

"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."

I both agree and disagree with Dan here. 

When I was in the middle of conversations and thinking that eventually led to me leaving a megachurch and beginning this pub church experiment, I said (and still believe) this wonderful piece of obviousness: the megachurch is great at reaching the people it's reaching. And it's awful at reaching the people it's not. 

Deep, huh?

To me the question isn't "Is the megachurch done?" Clearly, it's not. 

To me, the question has always been, is something else needed to reach those the megachurch isn't (and can't), those the traditional, smaller evangelical church (like 1st Baptist or 2nd Methodist) can't?

And the answer for me then and now is an emphatic yes. 

I pastor a growing church (something like 60% this year) of people for whom the attractional, large-scale production church was a dead end. Many of them even attempted to be part of a large-scale missional church here in town (that rhymes with Montego Bay) and found that though they appreciated the missional emphasis (as do I- I think we have a lot to learn from them), the size and difficulty of getting "in" precluded their participation. 

Many of our folks are either coming back to Christianity, just starting out (yes, we have people meeting Jesus @ Evergreen), or are, not to put too fine a point on it, half-way out the door giving it one last shot with us. I've heard from people in ALL of those places on the continuum that the attractional, program driven church, or even large church in general just wasn't attractive to them.

And that's the key to this whole discussion. 

There's a group of people for whom the megachurch works just fine. I LOVE that there are churches where those folks can find community and find Jesus. But let's be honest, there are people for whom those communities don't make sense, and an alternative is needed. 

Here's my contention (and no, I can't prove it- we'll just have to wait and see)- The numbers of people for whom the megachurch "works" is probably going to shrink over the next couple of decades. Mega Churches will continue to grow and be used by God, but those who intentionally make themselves smaller through strategies like multi-site will grow the most. More and more people will seek out medium sized communities (bigger than the house church or small (≤40) church but not as large as big (≥400) or mega-churches), recognizing that what they long for is community and it's just easier (though never easy) to create in smaller churches. I think when they want to hear Driscoll or (shudder) Ed Young Jr, or others they'll just hit the pod/vodcast. When they want production, they'll throw on a Hillsong or Crowder CD. For worship, a couple of guitars and vocals will suffice. 

But not just smaller communities, these people will seek out communities that point to and hold up Jesus, that encourage, prepare and launch people out into missional living (so no, I'm not predicting the renaissance of the millions of corner churches that can't seem to crack that particular code). They'll want communities that run lean (so not many building programs), take care of the poor, and focus on relationship and relational health. 

So while I appreciate Dan's pushback, I think it's a bit more complicated than what he's both depicted as the "missional" mindset and the way he's answering it. 

Of course, I could be wrong. Maybe Osteen and Young Jr are on to something. 

But I doubt it :)

Okay- your turn- what do you think? 

Sentness and Alongsideness- Missionality 101

 

“God sent His Son into the world, not to judge the world, but to save the world through Him.” -John 3:17

 

“Just as You sent Me into the world, I am sending them into the world.” -Jesus praying in John 17:18

 

For us, everything begins and ends with the person of Jesus- the Sent One who then sends us.

 

Our fundamental identity as a community is not only gathered, but sent. Gathering is a necessary prelude to being sent. Why did Jesus spend so much time with the disciples prior to sending them? To teach and equip them. To change them and to prepare them. It’s in the context of being gathered around the person of Jesus, of leaning into and learning from Him together that we are changed, sharpened, refined and made ready... The problem with the whole church thing is, we rarely seem to get past the gathered part.

 

At the end of the day (that’s for you Dustin), the whole purpose of Evergreen is not to gather on Sundays in a pub. We come together to do that which we can’t do as individuals (worship together, pray together, be in community), but our purpose as community is not just coming together- it’s going. A community following the Sent One is by definition a sent community. We say we are a “missional community” and that means we are a “missionary” community. A people who follow the God who left- who left comfort and privilege and went to live among those whom He wished to love and save.

 

“So the Word became human and lived among us...”John 1:14

 

Of course, there’s more than a sentness to Jesus. There’s an alongsideness as well. In other words, Immanuel, God With Us, came to be with us. Not against us. Not over us. But with us.

 

But for too much of the Church, the countercultural claims of the Gospel get lost in a people who don’t see the alongsideness of Jesus, who don’t follow His incarnational and serving example, and who then don’t see the power of the Gospel working itself out in their communities in the way they dream of it doing so.

 

The real power of the countercultral Gospel is found when it comes from along side, from someone who is with someone else and speaking out of a friendship, not the adversarial relationship (or worse, the unconcerned, practical apathy towards those around us) we in the Church too often cultivate.

Until we see our primary identity wrapped up in sentness AND in alongsideness, we may be countercultural, but we’ll just be speaking to ourselves.

 

When we truly grasp who Jesus was and what He did, it propels us out into mission and it changes how we live as a people structure our community. In that order. (This is something we’ll talk about over the next couple of weeks...)

 

And more: it’s in holding up the person of Jesus and following Him in mission that we find our meaning- as individuals and as a community. And that purposeful, meaning-filled, Christ-centered communal life is about the most attractive thing a church community could ever do.

 

A little harder to propose to the “Evangelism Committee,” but infinitely more effective and satisfying...

What if...

What if... it all went right the FIRST time around? What if ministry/life/marriage/whatever was...

Easy?

What if there were no problems in your church community- no logistical issues, no people problems, everyone gave, everyone served... you "cast a vision" and people just sprang into action like a bunch of Disney™ animated birds, squirrels and other assorted small animals to accomplish your will?

Paradise?

Well...

I imagine it would feel that way for awhile.

And then... you'd probably realize it had been awhile since you'd actually learned anything- There are no lessons to be be learned when everything goes magically right.

You'd probably realize that while the lows of making mistakes were gone, so were the highs of figuring things out and finally getting over that hump.
The camaraderie and community built when people endure hardship and struggle together to problem solve and just work out differences? I guess that would be a thing of the past.

The feeling of actually accomplishing something? It might feel rare now, but imagine- if everything you did just "worked", while at first it might be thrilling, eventually all feeling of accomplishment would level out to a dull, gray and boring sameness. No high fives for making a basket when you never miss.

It's difficult to appreciate the hard parts in and of themselves, but when we put them next to good parts, the easy parts? Sometimes, it's the weeds that make the challenge of gardening just that- a challenge.

And we all say we want a challenge, right? 

Core Commitments

This last Sunday we walked through something we call the "core commitments" of our community. The core commitments were something we developed over some months, opening it up to input and comment and revision from the whole community- they represent a broad stroke vision of what it looks like to commit to a community that doesn't have official "membership."

At evergreen, everyone is free (as I said on Sunday) to define their relationship to the community. But we want to recognize that there's a difference between someone who (very legitimately) says "I'm just kind of dipping my toes in the water and checking things out" and someone who says "I think I'm ready for the deep end." It's good to know what the relevant and practical differences between the two places are, even while journeying from one to the other and even while being, perhaps, somewhere in between...

Our Core Commitments and then some thoughts...

a good weekend...

So much community love and good feelings this weekend. And just a touch of Bob-dumbness™

Saturday was the rehearsal at the Sumner Community House and the rehearsal dinner at the MANsion (another of our community houses, just down the street). I was 15 minutes late to the rehearsal.

I'm not sure when this happened, this running 15 minutes late, perpetually. I think it was somewhere around the time kids came into my life. Another side-effect everyone failed to mention...
The rehearsal was short and sweet, the dinner long and cozy, with many people packed into the house and much good mexican food.

Sunday morning Chris led the discussion as we continued in Advent and wrapped up the story of Zechariah

And then a great community moment...

Some community moments...

Some community moments/snapshots from evergreen

One:

We've had a number of cool evergreen weddings in our short history, but tomorrow marks a first: The first time two people who became a part of evergreen separately, met and courted as part of our community, and are now getting married!

I think this is amazingly cool- The couple put their wedding day on a Sunday afternoon, so they could be there at the gathering on Sunday morning and so we could all, as a community, do something special.

Towards the end of our gathering, we'll have a time for Sarah and Jonathan to say something to the community, and for the community to say something to them...
And, in a practice borrowed from Quaker communities, they'll ask everyone present to sign a special marriage certificate.
Very cool.

Two:

Two Evergreeners, Brian and Starla, have recently adopted three children... It's an amazing story, and if you haven't heard it, you should read this... We had a shower for the Goffs a couple of weeks ago, and it was beautiful to see the response from our community- just a huge outpouring of clothes and toys and parenting equipment...

Here are some words from Starla:

Words just aren't enough to tell you guys how much this community has meant to us. Every piece of clothing pulled from the closet, every toy thrown across the room, cup used, video played, and game won or lost remind us how you guys came along side of us to help us love these kids. Yes the thank you notes are coming, slow but sure. But in the meantime, I just wanted to let you know that we are reminded of your generousity every moment. Thank you.

Three:

From nearly the beginning of evergreen's history, we have supported another church in town, The Bridge, in their efforts to reach homeless teens. Now, one of the pastors of the Bridge, Ken Loyd, is branching out to begin something new called HOMEpdx, specifically targeting being a church community for homeless teens. We'll continue to support Ken and his efforts financially, but even more so... We're sending at least one couple along on the adventure, Nathan and Jessi Willard. Here are their words:

"Ok Evergreenies-- It's time to officially let the cat out of the bag: Nathan and I have joined Ken Loyd, co-pastor at the Bridge, as part of a core team that will be planting a church in downtown Portland for homeless youth (as Ken would say, for our friends without houses). The church is called Home PDX, and our vision is to create just that-- a home for those that are lacking a home-- either physically, spiritually, or both. We are in the planning phase right now, meeting together on Sunday mornings to pray, plan, discuss, and get to know each other. We don't yet have a building, but we have some leads and our hope would be to have something up and running by the end of January. We have an eclectic mix of people on the core team, all with huge hearts and great vision and a desire to move in the direction God is moving us. And lots of tattoos and piercings... =) A little of our story on how we came to be here... for both of us, even before we were dating or married, we felt that God was putting the desire in our hearts for church planting, specifically with a goal to reach those who are not being reached by the traditional or quasi-traditional church (especially in Southern Oregon where there is nothing of the Evergreen sort). Finding Evergreen over a year ago excited us both a lot, as we saw the same desire in the hearts of many people who were actually reaching the kind of people that we were hoping the church would open its heart to. And we have loved being a part of this community. Long story short, we met a few people in the past 6 months who have been involved in church planting and have had opportunities to share ideas, get advice, and learn a lot ... we both came to a place recently where we felt that we were ready to jump in with both feet. We had no idea what this would look like or when it would be, but to be honest, we thought it would be part of an Evergreen plant. About a month ago, we were sharing these desires with our home group and prayed for specific direction... the very next day, Nathan got an e-mail from Ken that said "Bob said I should talk with you guys". We met with Ken soon after that and when we left our meeting, Nathan and I both knew that this is where God was leading (almost gently shoving) us to be. And there was no looking back from that point on. We were in with both feet."

Putting them together, bringing them into community, sending them out... The rythyms of comunity.

The other side of the community thing...

While it is a choice for every individual whether to engage or remain on the fringes of community, that's not to say the community itself doesn't play a role. And while (many) people in the mega church environment may know instinctively that finding community in a large setting like that is their responsibility (see yesterday's blog entry), that's not to say that the micro church might not have an edge in certain ways...

It's the responsiblity of those who are there, those who are in to make sure that the community is welcoming enough, porous enough, that new people approaching or those finding themselves hovering at the margins know that they are welcome to engage whenever they choose. Again, you simply can't create community for people. But you can create an atmosphere conducive to community and welcome people wholeheartedly.

And this is where the smaller church has it all over the larger. It's a tough thing for any large church to call itself "welcoming." You may have a greeter program with folks standing out front shaking hands and there may be classes designed to move people from the fringes inward... but all the programs in the world have a tough time making up for the fact that it's entirely possible for someone, in the average megachurch of today to attend on Sundays for weeks upon weeks without having anyone engage, recognize, and welcome them personally.

And while people may instinctively know as they enter that larger setting that it's on them to build community there, the lack of personal welcome is seriously off-putting to many. I can't tell you how many times I have heard the story "Yeah, we moved into town and started going to (Fill in Name of Large Emerging-esque Church in Portland where Donald Miller attends) and went for awhile- but nobody talked to us..."

Again, it's the individual's responsiblity to conect, but if everything in the atmosphere of the place communicates a message that "connecting here is an uphill battle" and "Sure, we love it that you are here, Parishoner Number 4,513!" then many people will choose to exit out the back door.

This is a hard discussion to have for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that we are talking about a LOT of different kinds of people. There are those who want community handed to them without doing the work of building relationships, showing up and being present, putting yourself out there. Believe me- they exist.

Then there are people who are genuinely less skilled at building relationships and need some help from a community. They need to be reassured time and again that they are welcomed, they need someone to notice that they are floating a bit and have people reach out to them.

And then there are those who are just hurting- they have been damaged by life and they need a community to embrace them because right now, embracing others is a practical impossiblity.

So, all that to say- there are different kinds of people who need different kinds of help in connecting. What everyone needs is a welcoming community, a community that notices when they are new and that notices when they are missing. Some people need more, true... but I say that knowing that too many people think they need more. They think they need people to chase after them and pursue them... when what they really need is a challenge to engage, to choose to connect... and maybe to find connection and community by welcoming others and being the welcoming community they want to see.

Community lessons from the megachurch...

I've been thinking a bit about the whole community thing recently, mulling over some thoughts about the need for intentionality and how we communicate that to people...

And I've realized that community is one area where the mega church may have it over the micro church.

Whaaaat?

No really... stick with me here...

I wish creating community was easier
But the fact is, creating community is hard work... It doesn't just happen.

And it doesn't matter if we're talking about a mega-context or a micro-one. Community still takes work.
Individuals always have two choices- anonymity or engagement.

So where does the mega-church have it over the micro church?

At the mega church, it's understood by nearly everyone what the two choices are. You know going in that if you are going to find community among these 5,000 people, it's on you.

At the micro church, people for some reason think it's different...

We have "community" as one of our core values. And one difficulty with that is that some people come, expecting community to be handed to them.

I have a number of emails in my files from people who have sort of faded away after spending some time with the evergreen community. One of the common themes is that they say things like "I just haven't found community here."

As though community is something you stumble into, something others can create for you...

The truth is, while connecting to community may be easier for some than for others, at a base level, it's the responsiblity of every individual. You either choose to connect to community, or you don't. You either do the hard work of being present, getting to know others, being known yourself, or you don't. You either throw your life in with others in community, or you don't. Anonymity or engagement...

No one can do these things for you.
All the rest of us can do is create an environment conducive to building community. It's up to you to actually make community happen in your own life. It's up to you to engage.

A wise pastor (hey Mark!) once said to me "Whenever someone says 'I just don't feel conected to this community' a perfectly legitimate response is to ask 'So why have you chosen not to connect?'"

"Helping people feel connected" is a great church buzz phrase. I think we need to ditch it, though. Here's my suggestion for a replacement: Challenging people to engage.

What do you think?

taxonomy- people who want you and people who need you...

As a pastor, a fact of life that you come to grips with (or better come to grips with) pretty quickly is that your supply of avaliable time is exceeded by the amount of people and needs that demand that time.

I've been thinking in taxonomies lately... maybe I'll be writing about a few of them.

But this one is in my head this morning- both as something that is currently guiding me and something that needs to guide me more and more- as my kids get older and as my church community grows, who gets my time?

First, my wife. She needs more of my time than she's getting right now. More of my attention, too.
Next, my kids. Jack is definitely getting to the point where dad's attention is becoming more and more important. I think to Jane I'm still the one who doesn't have breasts, but still... both of them need Dad.

Next is my family here in town- my mom, my stepdad. They need more of me than they are currently getting...

My church community needs me. It's my calling, my passion and my job, all wrapped up into one.
So, here's how I break that down...

Community...

"We work within a culture of rugged individualists and fragmented communities. We are officially schooled in the notion that we are most fully ourselves when we are liberated, autonomous, on our own. We live under the modern myth that it is possible, even desirable, to live our lives without external, social determination. Ironically, that we think it desirable to live our lives without external, social determination is proof that our lives have been externally, socially determined by the culture of capitalist consumption. I did not on my own come up with the notion that I am a sovereign individual who has no greater purpose in life than to live exclusively for myself. Rather, this culture has formed me to believe that I have no other purpose in life other than the purpose I myself have chosen. The irony is that I did not choose the story that I have no purpose in life other than that which I have chosen.

The issue is not, Shall I be externally determined by some community of interpretation and authorization? The issue is, "Which community will have its way with my life? Or perhaps more accurately, Will the community that determines, interprets, and authrizes me be worthy of my life?"

-Will Willimon (Pastor, pg 19)

church...

Two and a half years in, and I still believe in the Church.
And not just my particular community... Church with that capital C, you know?

There are a lot of reasons why people plant churches... some good, some less-than-good. The comforting thing to me is that in spite of the mixed grab bag of reasons we bring to this endeavor, whether it be pride, or ambition, or desperation, God still uses all that. He still finds pleasure in His people trying to do something that matters, trying to live out Christian community in the hopes that they'll be able to follow Christ together in a way that makes a difference for those around them.

church shopping...

I posted a link a couple of days ago to churchshoppers.com ... Dallas picked up the ball and ran with it. A small bit of discussion ensued...

I thought it might be helpful to say a couple of brief words about what I actually thought of this site, beyond the "Ugh" that I already posted, facund as that may be.

Karli on community

Karli, a member of our community who also happens to be married to our associate pastor Chris had some really cool thoughts on community and our Fourth of July get-together...

Blessed by Community

We had lots of grand fun for the fourth of July... We spent the night up in Ridgefield, saw the parade and hung out for good food and socializing with our parents friends. Then, headed back to P-town in our new car... (Chris' parents sent us home with their 16 year old Honda. It's got A/C and a radio, and it runs which is more than we have been working with.) for our church community celebration.

As we drove away last night (literally through and over exploding fireworks) I shared with Chris such a huge feeling of love for our church community. I feel loved and taken care of. I feel so much love for these people and I feel like I am helping to take care of them. We went in tired and harried from all of the Fourth of July "fun" and found ourselves relaxing. Sitting on lawn chairs talking with Jeff, Tom, Amy while our baby is held and played with by Victoria and McKenzie.

It is a beautiful feeling, camaraderie. Friendship. Walking through life, surrounded, befriended. People on all sides of you. Talking about life, issues and daily occurrences.

why...

...gather?

I got this email from Dallas in Lafayette... he's part of the team planting Vox. He said:

Bob,

Drew and I are reading Organic Church and The Shaping of Things to Come and wanted to invite you into the big question we're circling right now: Why gather? If the "small group" of christians contains everything the body of Christ needs to reproduce and transform society, why get together in large groups on a weekly basis?

How do you answer that question?

Dallas

Good question... I have a lot of thoughts, have been processing this for a couple of weeks and will take it in chunks. I need to get on sermon, so some prelims...

First, here's an excellent talk by Scot McKnight about the relationship of Gospel and the local church. Really, really good stuff with kind of a long intro- but once he gets firing on all four, it's cool...

Second, I don't know if I can go along with "If the "small group" of christians contains everything the body of Christ needs to reproduce and transform society, why get together in large groups on a weekly basis?" It doesn't... at least I don't think so.

(Caution: Everything that follows is definitely unbaked and I'll probaby change my mind about it tomorrow, so... I'm also fully aware that what I'm basically saying is "our way seems to be the best" which EVERYONE believes, right? What I will say emphatically though is that it's not the only valid way, and merely best for us... others are free to conclude otherwise)

family...

I love NT Wright...

"The common life of the church, centred upon this symbolic praxis and focus on Jesus, seems to have functioned from the first in terms of an alternative family. The impetus to pool resources speaks of a community organization which resembles in some quite striking ways the discipline of the Essenes. The problems which arose in relation to the care of the needy, particularly widows, are most readily comprehensible if we envisage the church, not as a part time voluntary organization of the like-minded which left normal social and familial attachments unaffected, but as a group with definite boundaries. If one belonged to it, one did not belong any more, certainly not in the same way, to one’s previous unit, whether familial or racial. The fact that contact with one’s original family, race and culture would most likely be continue was taken for granted, but the way it was addressed proves the point…From baptism onward, one’s basic family consisted of one’s fellow-Christians…The early church was thus marked out from the first as a familial community, loyalty to which overrode all other considerations…What we seem to be faced with is the existence of a community which was perceived to be subverting the normal social and cultural life of the empire precisely by its quasi-familial, quasi-ethnic life as a community. The fact of widespread persecution, regarded by both pagans and Christians as the normal state of affairs within a century of the beginnings of Christianity, is powerful evidence of the sort of thing that Christianity was, and was perceived to be. It was a new family, and “third race”, neither Jew nor Gentile but “in Christ”. Its very existence threatened the foundational assumptions of pagan society."

ht: shaeman

The Dangers of Easter...

Our Easter gathering was good... Nothing really different or special in the gathering itself (other than that we did announcements at the end), just a good time of shaking off the sorrow of Good Friday and embracing the joy of the resurrection. We ended up having more people than we've ever had at a gathering, which was very cool, though it always surprises me when it happens (okay- it's a bit less surprising on Easter...)

But this weekend got me thinking... There are some dangers for the soul of a community surrounding Easter time.
And the soul of a pastor, I think.

I want us to be careful of how we think, talk and act around times like this last weekend.

Remember, Little Pastor- Easter is not a marketing opportunity. The resurrection of the Son of God is not an opportunity to pimp our programs or build our flock, even under the guise of "concern for lost". And it's not about me. (Please wait a minute while I repeat that a few times to myself... ) Heaven forbid we should ever do community in such a way that our main avenue for people coming to Christ is hearing the Gospel preached from the mouth of one person, rather than hearing the Gospel preached from the mouths (and lives) of the whole community. If, in your community, more people are becoming Christians on Sunday than during the rest of the week, I think you may have a problem.

Times like Easter and Christmas are dangerous for us in that we begin to see them as something different than what they really are for the life of a community. This is where the Christian calendar really helps, I think- focusing our communal life on the events of the life of Christ all year around, rather than seeing "two big outreach event Sundays!" every year in Christmas and Easter.

Yeah, a lot of people come to a Sunday service once or twice and year, and they are more likely to come on Easter than just about any other time than Christmas. And yes, the Holy Spirit is amazing, drawing people to Himself even through our goofy Easter pageants and songs (or, our smoke machines and laser shows, if that's your thing...).

The danger in giving in to the impulse to do something radically different and humongous big and special at these times is what we communicate both to our community and those we are inviting to become a part of our community. What we subtly communicate (and sometimes not so subtly) to our people is that their job is to invite people who are not in our churches to come on Sunday morning so that the Pastor and the drama team and the worship guy and the Holy Spirit can take a whack at them.

I know that's overstating, but believe me... I've been there. And that's what "event evangelism" communicates, I think. Further, it often (unintentionally) communicates that it's not the job of the average person to be introducing people to Jesus. Leave it to the pros with the degrees and the training and the gifts.

"You get 'em to church... we'll get 'em to Jesus!"

How disempowering is that for people?

I would much rather we both explicitly and implicitly communicate a model that looks more like befriending people, enfolding them into the rhythms of our lives, sharing the highs/lows and how our faith informs those with them, integrating them into home groups and movie nights and the big events of our lives... and how natural would it be after all that love and enfolding that they become a part of our community, even before they believe? And then... that they believe, having seen it lived and tested and the reality of a life of faith, as opposed to simply a special sunday morning where the band rocks extra hard and the pastor has a few more funny stories than normal?

Easter is dangerous for those of us who are trying to avoid an attractional model of church because the attractional model reaches its zenith... or maybe its nadir... every year at Easter as thousands of churches try to do "something special" in the hopes that their people will invite others to come and be bait-n-switched into a relationship with Jesus... and we, trying hard to do something a bit more simple and organic, are tempted to abandon the rhythms of our community in a misguided effort to "keep up."

Yeah... I said "bait 'n' switch" because that's what it is. More than simply communicate to our people that it's not their job, we communicate something to those we would love to see become part of our community... And it's not a positive message. In fact, if we're not careful, we could end up really disappointing some people. How?
By "offering" them less on subsequent visits. Less pizzazz... less oomph. I'd be kind of pissed off if the first week I went was Cirque Du Soleil and the next week was Phil and Ted's Bargain Rate Circus, you know?

I was super impressed to see another church planter dial it down a bit this year after hearing the disappointment of some people who came to Easter services last year and when coming back the next week were faced with a completely different (and less exciting) offering.

Look, I'm not saying we shouldn't take advantage of increased visitor attendance and preach the Gospel and hope that God does something amazing in people's lives...

I'm just saying that if that's your strategy- wait for someone to wander within range of your Gospel cannons and then fire on them in hopes of scoring a hit, or worse yet, doing some cool things in the hopes that they might be lured within range, then I think there a better way. Less defined, less able to be controlled by the pastors, less able to brag about at pastor's conferences or have a book written about it... but better. People loving people into your community and into relationship with Jesus.

It doesn't take mailers, banners, and Cirque Du Soleil every week. Just a bunch of loving, welcoming Christ followers. People who genuinely care. People who are seeking relationships with other people, and sharing life with them. A competent all-community gathering where things work well so as not to be a distraction from what God wants to do that morning, sure... but less of a focus on Sunday mornings as the center of community and more of a focus on the community and its revolving around Jesus Himself.

I remain convinced that what we win people with, we win them to.

update: Andrew Seely has some good and similar thoughts here

A full calendar and a full community...

So, yeah... The calendar is getting way full!
I'm noticing more and more days where there is more than one event we're invited to, weekends where Friday, Saturday, Sunday are all full...
It will be interesting to see how we handle this as a community- how we do this without becoming clique-ish?
We're still small enough that there's a semi-reasonable (which also means semi-unrealistic) possibility that everyone can be involved with everything. But we're just at the cusp of being large enough that enough different people are doing enough different things that we have to decide where we'll be, what we'll go to... and how we make sure to keep enough time/space in our lives for missional living with non-evergreen people as well.

My hope for our community is that we would consciously avoid segregating- that is, as events happen we'd make a concerted effort to always be getting out of our normal tracks and mixing it up. A lot happens at the community houses... a lot happens at the Goffs. I'd hate to see (not that we're doing this now, I'm just saying something before) us develop two tracks within the church and not see much cross pollination between them.

Thank you evergreen for being an amazing, wonderful community... thank you for caring about each other, and loving each other and taking care of and time for one another. May your tribe increase!

Let's talk about our stool...

So, a little discussion on leadership has broken out in the comments on my 1st Seven Questions answer...

I wrote the post below, and Brian said:

Trust. Trust that we will find balance without having to run all over the teeter-totter trying to creating balance at each moment.

To which I said:

Oh, I do Brian.. but it's a three-legged stool, you know?
Trust in the Holy Spirit to guide and teach us, trust in the community to listen to the Holy Spirit, and exercising my role as shepherd, our role as elders. It seems like if you kick out any of these three, you end up in trouble.
I can trust, but also act...

The trust keeps me from freaking out.

i hope. :)

To which Brian replied:

Well said.

And then Starla chimed in:

Three legged stool? So, you think that the leadership is a different post than the community post? Somehow separate and distinct? Oh, dear God, no. Bob, you are part of the community and do not exist apart from it. And do you share the same weight as the Holy Spirit? Dear Blessed Lord! This analogy disturbs me so.

Having greater weight or responsibility is one thing, but you're own separate post!?! Simply having greater responsibility has been misused and overused so many times...by so many leaders...there must be a better way. Surely, there is, at the very least, a better analogy.

And I replied:

Well, I'll think more about it... but some thoughts:

It's an us/we (leadership) not a "me" and that's pretty important.

There are commands in Scripture directed specifically at teachers/pastors/leaders...

It seems as though God, in the context of community, calls some to higher responsibility...

We can flatten it as much as is humanly possible, but there will always be a role for leaders, right?

I separate it in my comment, because there may be a time when leadership needs to call the community to listen to the Holy Spirit more carefully (and vice versa!), right?

and then:

No wait... the more I think about this, the more I think it's an appropriate analogy. Let's change gears and see if it still works...

Take the issue of kid's ministry, right? We've been saying it's an everybody/all community thing... but some are stepping up and taking more responsibility in bringing structure to what we do with kids... so what's wrong with saying that kid's ministry rest on the legs of the community as a whole, and parents and those who have stepped up to facilitate? There's definitely overlap there, but also some areas where there's no overlap... each deserves to be singled out.

Or doing the Bridge feast? Clearly, the multnomah group depends on the community as a whole to do it and help make it happen, but they take the lead... feeding the Bridge kids rests on the legs of the community as a whole and the Multnomah Village Home Group...

So yeah, in the context of keeping the community on track, we depend on the Holy Spirit, on the community as a whole, and the leadership as a subset of the community.

yeah :)

So what do you think? Should leadership get it's own leg in the stool???

As an aside, I think starla was posting this as I wrote those last comments, but she asks some really good questions about just what leaders will be judged on, anyway:

I agree, Leaders, I believe, will be judged at a higher standard based on my reading of scripture. Am I judged by the correctness of my position? My ability to create consensus? The patience I show others? The gentleness of correction? I already am not perfect, nor can I be. I cannot have perfect theology or a perfect faith. So, how will I be judged?

Does that greater responsibility translate into a change in behavior? Maek me more conservative? Less likely to take risks? Does that mean a lay person does not share the burden of training others? Making others accountable? Operating under conviction?

It starts to look a great deal like the conversation we had about marriage...

(BTW-by "you" I meant leadership--it is no less strange for me to think of you, rich, chris, chip and stephen having your own 'leg'.)

Burger King Christianity...

So the last post about the church giving away the house has me thinking a few things.

First, while I'm sure many people reading this understand what I mean when I say "attractional" church, but many might not, so briefly...
Attractional church is that model where we see the work of church and of evangelism as getting people to come. If we tink enough with the seats, if the music is rocking enough, if the kids program high energy enough, if the parking is plentiful and the coffee sweet, non-Christians will magically develop a desire to come to church. And when they come, Pastor can take a whack at 'em.
For better or for worse... no, scratch that... for worse, this has become the dominant model in American evangelicalism.

Second- what's wrong with it? If it gets people to church, why should we not do anything possible, short of something immoral or illegal to get people there?

Because the goal is not to pack a room, and it's not the Pastor's job to get your friends saved. And shame on any pastor whose model allows people to think it is.

This is the phrase that has been going through my head recently: What you win them with, you win them to. The problem with the attractional model is this: We bring people in on the basis of consumeristic impulses and when they fail to make the transition from church consumer to servant of all, we scratch our heads and wonder what's wrong with them.

There's nothing wrong with them (well, there's something wrong with us all, but that's a different post). As Peter Senge says, your system is perfectly designed to produce the results you are getting.

Have a church filled with spoiled, selfish people who "want it their way?"
Well... guess why.

The attractional model of church is perfectly designed to create consumers of church rather than covenant community.

But people are getting more and more individualistic! The trend is towards people wanting to customize their experiences! They want choices! They want options! They want pizzazz!

So give them choices and options, but do it in a way that produces community, not consumers. And do it in a way that makes them think about others as much as they think about themselves.
Put the burden of creating the church they want on the community itself. Tell them coming in, "This probably isn't the church you are looking for, but it could be with your help. You can create whatever it is you feel is missing."

Refuse to do for your community what your community should do for themselves.
Give them the option/responsibilty of creating a community that makes sense to them, that works for them. Still individualistic? Sure... We're not saying that church should just be "This is what we offer- take it or leave it." But when we make allowances for individualism in healthy ways like creating open source community and allowing people to have a hand in shaping what happens, rather than the unhealthy ways of trying to figure out what it is people want and then working like crazy to give it to them, I think we end up creating more covenant communities and less consumers. And when we call people to create a community that not only works for them but for those around them as well...

But back to our original question... Let's not just offer criticism of churches that give away big ticket items as bribes to come hear a sermon.

Let's do a little thought experiment. Let's say a little old lady in your church has died and left you $120,00. Your buidling is in fine shape, all the programs you have are fully funded, everything is good financially in every area, and now you have $120,000... and someone says "Hey! We should use this money to somehow see if we can help more people come to know Jesus!"
Someone else says you should buy a house and give a chance to win it to everyone who comes through the door that year. Someone else says that's an asinine idea...

So what do you do?

What do you do?

:)

Community House Blogs!

Two of our three Community Houses (The Sumner House and the Alpernardo/Married Community House) have blogs (Casa de Las Girls where are you???)

The Sumner House Blog is really, truly an amazing work of art... beautiful, beautiful thoughts on and insight into the experience of living in community.

Married House blog, the bar has been set high! :)

Hospitality VS Entertaining

Starla posted this on our forum... it was so awesome, and since she didn't post it on her blog, I thought I'd post it here. Very, very good thoughts...

When we talk about community...I think about getting to the point where we don't make the bed when others come over. Glad, Sarah and I got into a few months ago about the difference between hospitality and entertaining. I thought I'd throw it out there. We discussed how hard it is to share stuff or have people over.

I think we decided that part of the problem is that we were taught that when you have guests:

1. you have to have nice stuff;
2. the house has to be clean;
3. the guest has to be entertained; and
4. the food must be well prepared (practice is essential)

It seems that in order to keep that up, you have to be crazy anal (and proficient), or you don't have people over. Which is sad, because I find the people I am closest to are the people whom I have hung out with at each other's homes.

It dawned on me that I can't do keep this up when I got a call a few years ago from our friends who live in Italy. With one week's notice we were hosting them and their two boys for one month. Brian and I came to the realization that the only way we could host a family for a month is to be bad hosts. "Here's your bedroom, here's the fridge, here's a key. If you need anything, use it, get it, prepare it."

This started the process of me trying not be stressed out when having people over. [I'm getting better] To have a true community, it can't be about me, us, our house, our stuff, our presentation. It needs to be about the people. People feeling like they can drop by. Eat with us--whatever we are eating (Does this smell okay to you?)

As far as I am concerned, the new benchmark is whether guests help themselves to the fridge when hungry/thirsty or wash dishes after a meal. A recent guest just fixed our screen door-I love it, but it is also humbling. (It took two days for Kevin to punch a new hole--Kevin's the cat) It also means that I have to tell people when I've had enough or help. "I'm going to bed, lock up when you leave." "I hate to kick you out but I've got to be up early tomorrow." "On your way over, can you stop by the store and pick up..."

I suppose when I hear about us becoming a community, I envision a network of "safe" havens. I would hope that each of us are making meals for each other, even if it is Kraft Easy Mac...or we aren't part of a community house...or you have to move a newspaper to sit down.

I'm making pasta tonight. Want some?