Brokenhearted
I weep for some people today.
We have a church in our town that has a history of power struggles and church splits etc. I heard a few weeks ago that the youth pastor, who had been there for over 15 years, was leaving without knowing what he was going to do next. I thought, "Hmmm, God must be doing something in him." So we had lunch, and I found out he was going to start a new church. I was kind of disappointed really. I was hoping that God was showing him the answers don't lay in how we do church, as much as how we are the church. But, God is showing him some things none-the-less. . .
So, the next Sunday my daughter was asked to go to this AWANA thing by one of her friends. We let her go and she really enjoyed it. She is a Martha, so busyness is next to godliness for her. . .yes, we are teaching her otherwise. It also happened to be the second week that this new church met. We found out that the "elders" of this church were waiting at the door and asking the AWANA teachers if they had attended the "new church". If they said yes, they were immediately told to get their things and leave, they were "anti-Our Church". Now, these teachers have taught these classes all year and were not even allowed to say goodbye to the kids. Not to mention that some of these people have had relationships in the church for years.
How sad it is when loyalty for an organization is given more weight than relationships and love. My heart grieves for those hurt, and for those who are causing the hurt. My heart grieves for those who left to start the new church, and for those who remain at the old church. I wonder if either will find the freedom they search for?
My heart also grieves for a mother of friend of ours. They have been life-long Lutherans. Which means, in my experience anyway, that they don't know much about the Bible. Anyway, they went to a Amazing Facts conference. This guy is some scary shit! I checked out some teaching and his view of Law and Grace is so technical and convoluted I didn't know how to follow it. He has an answer for everything, which immediately raises my suspicion.
The sad part is that through his legalistic teaching, he has this family so scared they are going to hell for having church on Sunday instead of Saturday, that they are freaking out. This is their first exposure to the Bible really, and our friend is really concerned for their wellbeing, but she doesn't know how to help them either. It is so sad when people are manipulated by fear-based teaching: "Get it right, or go to hell!" I am glad that I know a God that is much more gentle than some of his supposed "teachers" are. . . Hopefully, we will have a chance to talk to them. We did send some other teachings on Law and Grace that they can read together.
But my heart still grieves for those manipulated by legalists. . .
Friday, April 29, 2005
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Here is a part of a conversation that I had on Alan's blog regarding a critique of the "Emerging Church". I would love to hear your thoughts. . .
I will say this, hopefully with tones and words of love:
In my opinion, many leaders in the EC have over emphasized things like the role of the pastor/leader, community and liturgy. I think this over emphasis will, in the end, will sidetrack the “conversation” into becoming just another denomination/flavor of Christianity, rather than a dynamic, relational movement of the Spirit.
Additionally, I think, in general, the EC has not gone far enough in challenging the role of the pastor/leader. I believe you have merely accepted a revised version of the modern pastor that, in the end, slaps a “relational” label on the same power structure the modern church uses, and puts external expectations and obligations on people to conform. I found it interesting that Kevin Rain’s blog just today touched on an angle of leadership that may be a symptom of what I’m talking about. You see, I so agree with Kevin’s “corrective”, but I wonder if that will happen because earlier Kevin says,
“We don't have enough agenda for those we lead. . . As leaders we know where we want someone to be moving toward. We usually have the mind of Christ on this too.”
From my point of view that walks the razor’s edge between power, authority and manipulation, and the natural encouragement that flows from the pastor/elder/deacon (yes, I believe these terms are more interchangeable than we make them out to be). I mean, is it just me, or if I believe I have the mind of Christ for someone else will I start trying to make that person meet my expectations and obligations of what I perceive to be the “mind of Christ”. Why not let that person have his own “mind of Christ”? I think this problem stems for an over emphasis on the role of the leader/pastor, which should be, very simply, to serve.
If you want to focus specifically on liturgy, it reminds me of Isaiah where they were giving sacrifices and expecting that God was present because they were doing the ritual. That is no different than gathering a bunch of people together in a building and singing songs and expecting that God is present. The comfort and safety of religious rules and rituals are always easier then living in the tension of relationship. I believe Jesus made it clear that He isn’t interested in rituals, but relationship. This is why I think it is foolish to make rituals such a large part of our experience of God. He may be present in them today, but what about tomorrow? A liturgy may demand my attention for a fixed period of time, but a relationship is continuous and demands constant attention. Some might say that the ritual forms me even if God is not present in it. I might concur, but the forming may not be positive.
I guess that is part of why I don’t feel a part of the “emerging conversation”, because much of the conversation is about things that are peripheral to Christ. In my opinion of course.
As for examples of what I am talking about, just pick some links on the “emerging” lists and see what people are talking about. Chances are there isn’t a whole lot of wrestling with Scripture. But, people are very interested in liturgy as a means to connect with God, they are very interested in learning how to lead with little or no mention of the headship of Christ, and they are talking a lot about community. While these can all be good things, they can also be totally void of God.
I can just tell you what I see, given my point of view and experiences. I really don’t expect anyone to be changed by my opinion. I do appreciate the dialogue though. Unfortunately, I am working nights and have a sick kid to be with all day, so no rest for the wicked today. . .I probably won’t be able to post again today, but I will check back. Peace to all here!
I will say this, hopefully with tones and words of love:
In my opinion, many leaders in the EC have over emphasized things like the role of the pastor/leader, community and liturgy. I think this over emphasis will, in the end, will sidetrack the “conversation” into becoming just another denomination/flavor of Christianity, rather than a dynamic, relational movement of the Spirit.
Additionally, I think, in general, the EC has not gone far enough in challenging the role of the pastor/leader. I believe you have merely accepted a revised version of the modern pastor that, in the end, slaps a “relational” label on the same power structure the modern church uses, and puts external expectations and obligations on people to conform. I found it interesting that Kevin Rain’s blog just today touched on an angle of leadership that may be a symptom of what I’m talking about. You see, I so agree with Kevin’s “corrective”, but I wonder if that will happen because earlier Kevin says,
“We don't have enough agenda for those we lead. . . As leaders we know where we want someone to be moving toward. We usually have the mind of Christ on this too.”
From my point of view that walks the razor’s edge between power, authority and manipulation, and the natural encouragement that flows from the pastor/elder/deacon (yes, I believe these terms are more interchangeable than we make them out to be). I mean, is it just me, or if I believe I have the mind of Christ for someone else will I start trying to make that person meet my expectations and obligations of what I perceive to be the “mind of Christ”. Why not let that person have his own “mind of Christ”? I think this problem stems for an over emphasis on the role of the leader/pastor, which should be, very simply, to serve.
If you want to focus specifically on liturgy, it reminds me of Isaiah where they were giving sacrifices and expecting that God was present because they were doing the ritual. That is no different than gathering a bunch of people together in a building and singing songs and expecting that God is present. The comfort and safety of religious rules and rituals are always easier then living in the tension of relationship. I believe Jesus made it clear that He isn’t interested in rituals, but relationship. This is why I think it is foolish to make rituals such a large part of our experience of God. He may be present in them today, but what about tomorrow? A liturgy may demand my attention for a fixed period of time, but a relationship is continuous and demands constant attention. Some might say that the ritual forms me even if God is not present in it. I might concur, but the forming may not be positive.
I guess that is part of why I don’t feel a part of the “emerging conversation”, because much of the conversation is about things that are peripheral to Christ. In my opinion of course.
As for examples of what I am talking about, just pick some links on the “emerging” lists and see what people are talking about. Chances are there isn’t a whole lot of wrestling with Scripture. But, people are very interested in liturgy as a means to connect with God, they are very interested in learning how to lead with little or no mention of the headship of Christ, and they are talking a lot about community. While these can all be good things, they can also be totally void of God.
I can just tell you what I see, given my point of view and experiences. I really don’t expect anyone to be changed by my opinion. I do appreciate the dialogue though. Unfortunately, I am working nights and have a sick kid to be with all day, so no rest for the wicked today. . .I probably won’t be able to post again today, but I will check back. Peace to all here!
Saturday, April 23, 2005
Abba's Comfort
I posted on Nov. 3, 2003 regarding a dream I had about my Granny. My Granny was an awesome lady! She represents safety, comfort, and servanthood to me. She has been gone for going on two years now and I think about her from time to time, but nothing really emotional or anything.
Last night I had another vivid dream about her. I usually can't remember most of my dreams, so this in itself is unusual for me.
I don't know that the specific dream was really all that important. What was important was that I awoke at 1:30 feeling her presence and comfort. I had tears rolling down my cheeks as I awoke. I got and went to the couch to soak in what was going on, and God made it clear that it was not Granny comforing me, but Him. He let me know that He is with us on this journey, even when He feels distant, or chooses to remain silent. So, last night, with tears rolling down my cheeks I sat in the arms of Abba and was comforted. . .
2Co 1:3-5 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! He is the Father of mercies and the God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our suffering, so that we may be able to comfort others in all their suffering, since we ourselves are being comforted by God. For just as Christ's sufferings overflow to us, so our comfort overflows through Christ.
I posted on Nov. 3, 2003 regarding a dream I had about my Granny. My Granny was an awesome lady! She represents safety, comfort, and servanthood to me. She has been gone for going on two years now and I think about her from time to time, but nothing really emotional or anything.
Last night I had another vivid dream about her. I usually can't remember most of my dreams, so this in itself is unusual for me.
I don't know that the specific dream was really all that important. What was important was that I awoke at 1:30 feeling her presence and comfort. I had tears rolling down my cheeks as I awoke. I got and went to the couch to soak in what was going on, and God made it clear that it was not Granny comforing me, but Him. He let me know that He is with us on this journey, even when He feels distant, or chooses to remain silent. So, last night, with tears rolling down my cheeks I sat in the arms of Abba and was comforted. . .
2Co 1:3-5 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! He is the Father of mercies and the God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our suffering, so that we may be able to comfort others in all their suffering, since we ourselves are being comforted by God. For just as Christ's sufferings overflow to us, so our comfort overflows through Christ.
Monday, April 18, 2005
Stuuuuupid Cat!
Barna's Report for the Year
I mainly think this stuff is rubbish, but it is interesting in one way. . .
George Barna, who has overseen the measurement of these factors since the tracking process began in 1991, noted that religious change generally occurs at a glacial pace. “The meter hasn’t budged for most of the trends we have been following over these 15 years,” the researcher noted. “The only discernible increases have been in the number of unchurched adults, those who are participating in small groups or cell groups, and the percentage of born again Christians who share their faith with non-Christians. The decreases relate to church attendance, Sunday school involvement, the percentage of people who align with Catholicism, and the number who have a biblical view of God’s character. In general, predicting next year’s religious statistics is safer than foretelling whether the Cubs will win the World Series.”
Hmmm. . .no real change in 15 years. . .maybe the "evangelism" of the "Evangelicals" isn't working?
Barna's Report for the Year
I mainly think this stuff is rubbish, but it is interesting in one way. . .
George Barna, who has overseen the measurement of these factors since the tracking process began in 1991, noted that religious change generally occurs at a glacial pace. “The meter hasn’t budged for most of the trends we have been following over these 15 years,” the researcher noted. “The only discernible increases have been in the number of unchurched adults, those who are participating in small groups or cell groups, and the percentage of born again Christians who share their faith with non-Christians. The decreases relate to church attendance, Sunday school involvement, the percentage of people who align with Catholicism, and the number who have a biblical view of God’s character. In general, predicting next year’s religious statistics is safer than foretelling whether the Cubs will win the World Series.”
Hmmm. . .no real change in 15 years. . .maybe the "evangelism" of the "Evangelicals" isn't working?
Saturday, April 16, 2005
The Mystery of Christ in You
I’ve been doing some reading in Colossians as of late and God is moving and revealing Himself to me in some different ways. I was struck by something in the text.
Col 1:13-19 For He has delivered us from the power of darkness and has translated us into the kingdom of His dear Son; in whom we have redemption through His blood, the remission of sins. Who is the image of the invisible God, the First-born of all creation. For all things were created in Him, the things in the heavens, and the things on the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers, all things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist. And He is the Head of the body, the church, who is the Beginning, the First-born from the dead, that He may be pre-eminent in all things. For it pleased the Father that in Him all fullness should dwell.
Reread this passage and notice how Paul keeps saying “all” in the text. Paul is saying that he is our center, our context, our core, our essence, our beginning and our end. . . our everything. He really doesn’t leave anything out, does he? Life for the Christian is found IN HIM. . .and just a few verses later, Paul states that the mystery of this whole deal is that He is IN US!
Col 1:26-27 the mystery which has been hidden from ages and from generations, but now has been revealed to His saints. For to them God would make known what are the riches of the glory of this mystery among the nations, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. . .
That is good news! The One who is All In All lives in us! This is why we don’t need more of God, we need less of everything else. Recognizing His working in us, resting in the love he puts in us, cooperating as He is changing us into His image, letting everything we do spring from our union with Him, allowing His power to flow through us, ridding ourselves of those things that diminish Him in our eyes, and embracing those things that magnify Him in our eyes. . .this is the Christian life.
Now I have known that God's Spirit lives in me for a long time. But living in that reality is a totally different story. . . and the journey goes on. . .
I’ve been doing some reading in Colossians as of late and God is moving and revealing Himself to me in some different ways. I was struck by something in the text.
Col 1:13-19 For He has delivered us from the power of darkness and has translated us into the kingdom of His dear Son; in whom we have redemption through His blood, the remission of sins. Who is the image of the invisible God, the First-born of all creation. For all things were created in Him, the things in the heavens, and the things on the earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers, all things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist. And He is the Head of the body, the church, who is the Beginning, the First-born from the dead, that He may be pre-eminent in all things. For it pleased the Father that in Him all fullness should dwell.
Reread this passage and notice how Paul keeps saying “all” in the text. Paul is saying that he is our center, our context, our core, our essence, our beginning and our end. . . our everything. He really doesn’t leave anything out, does he? Life for the Christian is found IN HIM. . .and just a few verses later, Paul states that the mystery of this whole deal is that He is IN US!
Col 1:26-27 the mystery which has been hidden from ages and from generations, but now has been revealed to His saints. For to them God would make known what are the riches of the glory of this mystery among the nations, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. . .
That is good news! The One who is All In All lives in us! This is why we don’t need more of God, we need less of everything else. Recognizing His working in us, resting in the love he puts in us, cooperating as He is changing us into His image, letting everything we do spring from our union with Him, allowing His power to flow through us, ridding ourselves of those things that diminish Him in our eyes, and embracing those things that magnify Him in our eyes. . .this is the Christian life.
Now I have known that God's Spirit lives in me for a long time. But living in that reality is a totally different story. . . and the journey goes on. . .
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
Universalism
I’ve been giving some thought to the doctrine of Universalism that some of my brothers in Christ are espousing. I decided to work out a few of the issues that I have in my flawed writing. Now, if you know me at all, you will know I am not a preacher of “hellfire and damnation” (in fact, I’m not a preacher at all). In fact, I think the typical Christian’s concept of hell is probably less than Biblical. While I believe that contemporary Christians have a diminished view of God’s love, I cannot accept Universalism as a natural consequence of that love.
Do I believe that God is love? Yep. Do I believe that necessarily limits God to being only love? No. Do I believe that I can even begin to understand the type of love that God is? Not really. I think there is a tendency to limit God’s essence to a type of love that my limited human mind can grasp.
The main issue that I have with the doctrine of Universalism is that it strips the Gospel of it’s relational and incarnational aspects. My understanding of the Universalist view is that the redeems all of mankind without mankind’s consent. In other words, God forces His love on mankind. In Fowler’s words:
He does not force His love on those that would like nothing to do with it. Without choice there is no faith-love relationship. In human terms, there is rape. God is not a rapist.
Fowler points out that “freedom of choice” is not the same as free-will. God is the only being with absolute free-will. He may choose to do what He wishes and is not bound by any single or primary character trait. Humans, on the other hand, have been granted freedom of choice which allows us “freely chosen relational participation in the inner love relations of the Trinity.” Additionally, Adam and Eve were created as “choosing creatures” it does not make sense to me that God would heal the damage of sin by forcing Himself upon us.
Universalism poses other problems when the relational context of the Gospel is taken into account. Jesus made it clear that he came to set us free to be fully human by allowing God to function through us for His glory. If Christianity were merely a religion, a set of defined rules and regulations, I could more easily buy Universalism, but it is not. If Jesus merely fulfilled a legal obligation on the cross to redeem humanity, I could more easily buy Universalism, but He did not. Christianity is relational at its core.
Salvation is Christ! Salvation is Jesus the Savior manifesting His life in a receptive individual. Christ in us is the hope of glory according to Col. 1:27! In Col. 3:4 Paul tells us that Christ is our life! 1Jo 5:11-12 tells us that “God has given to us everlasting life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.”
It is not just what Christ accomplished for us on the cross. Universalism allows for salvation outside of relationship. The Gospel is reduced to a satisfaction of a legal requirement that allows “all” people entrance into the presence of God, whether they desire it or not, and Jesus is reduced to a “get out of hell free card” that is jammed down humanity’s throat.
Some might say that our “freedom of choice” makes God appear weak, and that the Gospel now depends on our “works” to be effective. I disagree. A gift does not lose its worth if it is not accepted. Jesus did the work on the cross, accepting that work does not in any way diminish the efficacy or the beauty of the sacrifice.
Yes, God is reconciling “all things” to Himself.
Col 1:20 And through Him having made peace through the blood of His cross, it pleased the Father to reconcile all things to Himself through Him, whether the things on earth or the things in Heaven.
Wait a minute! Don’t stop there! Let’s keep reading!
Col 1:21-23 And you, who were once alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy and without blemish, and without charge in His sight, if indeed you continue in the faith grounded and settled, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which you have heard and which was proclaimed in all the creation under Heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister...
Hmmm....”if”.....
2Co 5:17-21 So that if any one is in Christ, that one is a new creature; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. And all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given to us the ministry of reconciliation; whereas God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and putting the word of reconciliation in us. Then we are ambassadors on behalf of Christ, as God exhorting through us, we beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. For He has made Him who knew no sin, to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
Why would Paul say “if anyone is in Christ” that they are a new creature? If the world has been reconciled then everyone should be a new creature. Why would Paul say that Christ has reconciled us in the past tense, then plead with the Corinthians to be reconciled? Maybe it is because God never changes, and we are the ones who must change by responding to God’s overture of love toward us?
The Good News is that salvation is available to all those who desire it in the person of Jesus Christ! Unfortunately, not everyone desires Him, and God will not force Himself on them.
Again, I'm sure my humble attempt at understanding this stuff is flawed. Just trying to figure it out with my limited intellect. . .
I’ve been giving some thought to the doctrine of Universalism that some of my brothers in Christ are espousing. I decided to work out a few of the issues that I have in my flawed writing. Now, if you know me at all, you will know I am not a preacher of “hellfire and damnation” (in fact, I’m not a preacher at all). In fact, I think the typical Christian’s concept of hell is probably less than Biblical. While I believe that contemporary Christians have a diminished view of God’s love, I cannot accept Universalism as a natural consequence of that love.
Do I believe that God is love? Yep. Do I believe that necessarily limits God to being only love? No. Do I believe that I can even begin to understand the type of love that God is? Not really. I think there is a tendency to limit God’s essence to a type of love that my limited human mind can grasp.
The main issue that I have with the doctrine of Universalism is that it strips the Gospel of it’s relational and incarnational aspects. My understanding of the Universalist view is that the redeems all of mankind without mankind’s consent. In other words, God forces His love on mankind. In Fowler’s words:
Any mechanical understanding of God’s love as a unilateral force deterministically and omnipotently imposed upon man by the “will of God” does violence to a proper understanding of God’s love. Relational love cannot be forced or coerced. On a human level this is called “rape,” and on the divine level such a unilateral determination to coerce man to participate in God’s love does violence to the genuine faith-love relationship that God intends by a freely chosen response and willingness of man to be intimately involved with Himself. Such a personal faith-love relationship is what God intended when He Self-limited His own sovereign omnipotence in order to grant man a genuine “freedom of choice” that allows a freely chosen relational participation in the inner love relations of the Trinity.
He does not force His love on those that would like nothing to do with it. Without choice there is no faith-love relationship. In human terms, there is rape. God is not a rapist.
Fowler points out that “freedom of choice” is not the same as free-will. God is the only being with absolute free-will. He may choose to do what He wishes and is not bound by any single or primary character trait. Humans, on the other hand, have been granted freedom of choice which allows us “freely chosen relational participation in the inner love relations of the Trinity.” Additionally, Adam and Eve were created as “choosing creatures” it does not make sense to me that God would heal the damage of sin by forcing Himself upon us.
Universalism poses other problems when the relational context of the Gospel is taken into account. Jesus made it clear that he came to set us free to be fully human by allowing God to function through us for His glory. If Christianity were merely a religion, a set of defined rules and regulations, I could more easily buy Universalism, but it is not. If Jesus merely fulfilled a legal obligation on the cross to redeem humanity, I could more easily buy Universalism, but He did not. Christianity is relational at its core.
Salvation is Christ! Salvation is Jesus the Savior manifesting His life in a receptive individual. Christ in us is the hope of glory according to Col. 1:27! In Col. 3:4 Paul tells us that Christ is our life! 1Jo 5:11-12 tells us that “God has given to us everlasting life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life.”
It is not just what Christ accomplished for us on the cross. Universalism allows for salvation outside of relationship. The Gospel is reduced to a satisfaction of a legal requirement that allows “all” people entrance into the presence of God, whether they desire it or not, and Jesus is reduced to a “get out of hell free card” that is jammed down humanity’s throat.
Some might say that our “freedom of choice” makes God appear weak, and that the Gospel now depends on our “works” to be effective. I disagree. A gift does not lose its worth if it is not accepted. Jesus did the work on the cross, accepting that work does not in any way diminish the efficacy or the beauty of the sacrifice.
Yes, God is reconciling “all things” to Himself.
Col 1:20 And through Him having made peace through the blood of His cross, it pleased the Father to reconcile all things to Himself through Him, whether the things on earth or the things in Heaven.
Wait a minute! Don’t stop there! Let’s keep reading!
Col 1:21-23 And you, who were once alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy and without blemish, and without charge in His sight, if indeed you continue in the faith grounded and settled, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which you have heard and which was proclaimed in all the creation under Heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister...
Hmmm....”if”.....
2Co 5:17-21 So that if any one is in Christ, that one is a new creature; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. And all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given to us the ministry of reconciliation; whereas God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and putting the word of reconciliation in us. Then we are ambassadors on behalf of Christ, as God exhorting through us, we beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. For He has made Him who knew no sin, to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
Why would Paul say “if anyone is in Christ” that they are a new creature? If the world has been reconciled then everyone should be a new creature. Why would Paul say that Christ has reconciled us in the past tense, then plead with the Corinthians to be reconciled? Maybe it is because God never changes, and we are the ones who must change by responding to God’s overture of love toward us?
The Good News is that salvation is available to all those who desire it in the person of Jesus Christ! Unfortunately, not everyone desires Him, and God will not force Himself on them.
Again, I'm sure my humble attempt at understanding this stuff is flawed. Just trying to figure it out with my limited intellect. . .
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
A.W. Tozer from "The Pursuit of God"
I want deliberately to encourage this mighty longing after God. The lack of it has brought us to our present low estate. The stiff and wooden quality about our religious lives is a result of our lack of holy desire. Complacency is a deadly foe of all spiritual growth. Acute desire must be present or there will be no manifestation of Christ to His people. He waits to be wanted. Too bad that with many of us He waits so long, so very long, in vain.
Every age has its own characteristics. Right now we are in an age of religious complexity. The simplicity which is in Christ is rarely found among us. In its stead are programs, methods, organizations and a world of nervous activities which occupy time and attention but can never satisfy the longing of the heart. The shallowness of our inner experience, the hollowness of our worship, and that servile imitation of the world which marks our promotional methods all testify that we, in this day, know God only imperfectly, and the peace of God scarcely at all.
If we would find God amid all the religious externals we must first determine to find Him, and then proceed in the way of simplicity. Now as always God discovers Himself to "babes" and hides Himself in thick darkness from the wise and the prudent. We must simplify our approach to Him. We must strip down to essentials (and they will be found to be blessedly few). We must put away all effort to impress, and come with the guileless candor of childhood. If we do this, without doubt God will quickly respond.
When religion has said its last word, there is little that we need other than God Himself. The evil habit of seeking God-and effectively prevents us from finding God in full revelation. In the "and" lies our great woe. If we omit the "and" we shall soon find God, and in Him we shall find that for which we have all our lives been secretly longing.
We need not fear that in seeking God only we may narrow our lives or restrict the motions of our expanding hearts. The opposite is true. We can well afford to make God our All, to concentrate, to sacrifice the many for the One.
Wednesday, April 06, 2005
Will the Emerging Church Fully Emerge?
I happened across this article on Eddie’s site the other day. I remember starting on this journey about 5-years ago and coming across Present Testimony Ministry and not understanding where they were coming from. Times have changed…
I would like to make a few comments about the article entitled “Will the Emerging Church Fully Emerge?”. Let me say a few things upfront. When I first heard of the concept of the “emerging church” I was intrigued. I knew that my church experience was missing something and I am not one that is afraid to try new things. I was drawn to the concept of “house church”, missional Christianity, and the emphasis put on community. Yet, I have hesitated to call myself part of the “emerging conversation” for several reasons. I think it is time to flesh some of them out, and I’d like to use Frank Viola’s article as a starting point.
That said, I think that Frank has a fairly limited definition of what he considers an “emerging church” and I really don’t want to get caught up in all the fuzzy language that comes into play when trying to define what this emerging thing is. So if the shoe doesn’t fit, don’t put it on. I think the principles still apply. Please take some time and read the article. My comments are based on it, and you may misunderstand what I’m saying if you don’t read it first.
Frank applauds much of what the emerging church stands for, but I think his critiques are valid based on the many conversations and blogs that I participate in. I’m not going to address them all.
I don’t know exactly who are what Viola is critiquing here, but I agree that this always a danger. Let me say that I think one example is the emphasis that many emerging leaders put on liturgy. I was raised in the church. I haven’t experienced a whole lot of high-church, so I really don’t relate a whole lot to whole liturgy thing. I understand it is supposed to form us by forcing us to read through various portions of Scripture on a regular basis. I’ve tried it. I’ve even tried to enjoy it. I’ve tried to convince myself that it was good for me. I wanted to be like my emerging brothers and sisters who claim it connects them to Christ. I felt out of place and awkward because it just doesn’t work for me. I don’t buy the garbage that “we don’t know what is forming us” either. I know what connects me to Christ. I know what magnifies Christ in my eyes.
I think the issue is that an exploration of our internal relationship with Christ can express itself in a hundred different ways outwardly. It seems like that was one of our critiques of the modern church: One size fits all worship. Do it our way or no way. I fail to see how forcing a group of people to follow a liturgy is respectful of the myriad of ways that Christ expresses Himself in us and transforms us into His likeness.
The emerging church phenomenon has wonderfully articulated some of the major flaws of the modern church, yet like all of its predecessors, it has failed to identify and take dead aim at one of the chief roots of most of its ills. Namely, the modern pastoral office.
Frank points out that the modern concept of the pastoral office, and role of pastor, is fraught with issues.
My experience in this country and overseas over the last seventeen years has yielded one immovable conclusion: God’s people can engage in high-talk about community life, Body functioning, and Body life, but unless the modern pastoral role is utterly abandoned in a given church, God’s people will never be unleashed to function in freedom under the Headship of Jesus Christ. . . The reason is that the flaws of the modern pastoral role are actually built into the role itself.
Now we get to some meat and potatoes. The role of the pastor, and leadership in general, is talked about a lot in the emerging church scene. We seem to be very concerned about our role in the leadership of our churches. We talk about leading from “along side” instead in “the front.” We try to define the role of a pastor in such a way that avoids any appearance of the power-hungry people that many of us have served under in our institutional experiences. We go to great lengths to avoid any appearance of power or control.
I have wondered if the issue really isn’t how we define, or execute the role and office of pastor at all. Maybe we are still defining the role of pastor based on our modern assumptions and putting way to much emphasis on the function. Why is there so much discussion about OUR role as leaders, when it is really Jesus who is The Leader? How many discussions are having about the Headship of Christ? About how to help our friends know, see, hear and follow Jesus?
I’ll confess. I like to be needed. I like to feel like I am helping others. I like to feel like I am contributing to the spiritual health of my friends. The problem is that most of our friends are conditioned by modern assumptions what it means to “do church” too. They are very likely to rely on the pastor, no matter what the context, instead of the leading of Jesus.
Frank says, For the last seventeen years, I have been gathering with Christians outside the organized church. Without exception, all of the groups that I have gathered with or have worked with personally have known the pains and joys of community life in bed-rock reality, they have all had consistent meetings under the Lord’s Headship without a leader or facilitator, they have made decisions together, and they have solved their own problems . . . all without a pastor, or a group of selected men to rule them, and without a song leader or worship team.”
Is this possible? Groups of people dealing with pains and joys of community life, meeting consistently, making decisions, solving problems. . .all without a pastor? I think it is if we are putting Person of Jesus Christ at the center of all we do, and let him run the church as He sees fit.
Additionally, I don't think we are doing those we lead any favors by calling ourselves pastors. Read this article to find out some more information about church history and role and office of pastors. Warning! You may never look at your pastor the same. . .
The emerging church phenomenon, like all preceding reform/renewal movements, has emphasized a bundle of Christian “its” and “things,” instead of the Person of Jesus Christ.
In my opinion, if we were to examine the broad canvas of Christian movements and denominations throughout church history, we would discover that each one paints with a very fine brush. For one movement, the brush is evangelism. For another, it is social justice and acts of mercy. For another, it is praise and worship. For another, it is Bible study and doctrinal/theological accuracy. For another, it is the power of God, the gifts of the Spirit, signs and wonders. For another, it is changing the political system. For another, it is spiritual warfare and intercessory prayer. For another, it is personal prophecy. For still another, it is end-time theology (eschatology). And on and on it goes. All of these brushes represent Christian “things.” And they are just that . . . “things.” They are Christian “its.” Subjects about the Lord with which to become engaged, at best. Or with which to become obsessed, at worst.
This hits the nail on the head for me. I think Viola says something to those on the emerging journey that expresses what I’ve felt. For all the talk about community, community is not Christ. For all the talk about leadership, our leaders are not Christ. For all the talk about Postmodernism, it is not Christ. For all the talk about liturgy, liturgy is not Christ. For all the talk about our “contexts”, they are merely the expression of a group of individuals filled with Christ. Without Christ, our context means nothing.
My own critique inserted here is that we are much more likely to quote McLaren and Nouwen then we are Jesus. If you don’t believe me check your blogs.
In conclusion, I guess I don’t consider myself “emerging”. I think some of the people that consider themselves leaders in the emerging church are awesome people on a deep journey with God. But, I don’t care for some of the forms, rituals and obligations that those leaders espouse. The expression of the fullness of Christ that resides in me can express itself in any number of ways and I refuse to limit it by slapping a label on it. I am a Christ-follower. Plain and simple.
If some of this is incoherent, I apologize. Much was written at work in the middle of the night.... I look forward to wrestling through these issues. . .
I happened across this article on Eddie’s site the other day. I remember starting on this journey about 5-years ago and coming across Present Testimony Ministry and not understanding where they were coming from. Times have changed…
I would like to make a few comments about the article entitled “Will the Emerging Church Fully Emerge?”. Let me say a few things upfront. When I first heard of the concept of the “emerging church” I was intrigued. I knew that my church experience was missing something and I am not one that is afraid to try new things. I was drawn to the concept of “house church”, missional Christianity, and the emphasis put on community. Yet, I have hesitated to call myself part of the “emerging conversation” for several reasons. I think it is time to flesh some of them out, and I’d like to use Frank Viola’s article as a starting point.
That said, I think that Frank has a fairly limited definition of what he considers an “emerging church” and I really don’t want to get caught up in all the fuzzy language that comes into play when trying to define what this emerging thing is. So if the shoe doesn’t fit, don’t put it on. I think the principles still apply. Please take some time and read the article. My comments are based on it, and you may misunderstand what I’m saying if you don’t read it first.
Frank applauds much of what the emerging church stands for, but I think his critiques are valid based on the many conversations and blogs that I participate in. I’m not going to address them all.
While the emerging church phenomenon has placed a much needed emphasis on the Jesus of the Gospels, it has focused on imitating His outward conduct instead of exploring His internal relationship with an indwelling God which was the source of His conduct.
I don’t know exactly who are what Viola is critiquing here, but I agree that this always a danger. Let me say that I think one example is the emphasis that many emerging leaders put on liturgy. I was raised in the church. I haven’t experienced a whole lot of high-church, so I really don’t relate a whole lot to whole liturgy thing. I understand it is supposed to form us by forcing us to read through various portions of Scripture on a regular basis. I’ve tried it. I’ve even tried to enjoy it. I’ve tried to convince myself that it was good for me. I wanted to be like my emerging brothers and sisters who claim it connects them to Christ. I felt out of place and awkward because it just doesn’t work for me. I don’t buy the garbage that “we don’t know what is forming us” either. I know what connects me to Christ. I know what magnifies Christ in my eyes.
I think the issue is that an exploration of our internal relationship with Christ can express itself in a hundred different ways outwardly. It seems like that was one of our critiques of the modern church: One size fits all worship. Do it our way or no way. I fail to see how forcing a group of people to follow a liturgy is respectful of the myriad of ways that Christ expresses Himself in us and transforms us into His likeness.
The emerging church phenomenon has wonderfully articulated some of the major flaws of the modern church, yet like all of its predecessors, it has failed to identify and take dead aim at one of the chief roots of most of its ills. Namely, the modern pastoral office.
Frank points out that the modern concept of the pastoral office, and role of pastor, is fraught with issues.
My experience in this country and overseas over the last seventeen years has yielded one immovable conclusion: God’s people can engage in high-talk about community life, Body functioning, and Body life, but unless the modern pastoral role is utterly abandoned in a given church, God’s people will never be unleashed to function in freedom under the Headship of Jesus Christ. . . The reason is that the flaws of the modern pastoral role are actually built into the role itself.
Now we get to some meat and potatoes. The role of the pastor, and leadership in general, is talked about a lot in the emerging church scene. We seem to be very concerned about our role in the leadership of our churches. We talk about leading from “along side” instead in “the front.” We try to define the role of a pastor in such a way that avoids any appearance of the power-hungry people that many of us have served under in our institutional experiences. We go to great lengths to avoid any appearance of power or control.
I have wondered if the issue really isn’t how we define, or execute the role and office of pastor at all. Maybe we are still defining the role of pastor based on our modern assumptions and putting way to much emphasis on the function. Why is there so much discussion about OUR role as leaders, when it is really Jesus who is The Leader? How many discussions are having about the Headship of Christ? About how to help our friends know, see, hear and follow Jesus?
I’ll confess. I like to be needed. I like to feel like I am helping others. I like to feel like I am contributing to the spiritual health of my friends. The problem is that most of our friends are conditioned by modern assumptions what it means to “do church” too. They are very likely to rely on the pastor, no matter what the context, instead of the leading of Jesus.
Frank says, For the last seventeen years, I have been gathering with Christians outside the organized church. Without exception, all of the groups that I have gathered with or have worked with personally have known the pains and joys of community life in bed-rock reality, they have all had consistent meetings under the Lord’s Headship without a leader or facilitator, they have made decisions together, and they have solved their own problems . . . all without a pastor, or a group of selected men to rule them, and without a song leader or worship team.”
Is this possible? Groups of people dealing with pains and joys of community life, meeting consistently, making decisions, solving problems. . .all without a pastor? I think it is if we are putting Person of Jesus Christ at the center of all we do, and let him run the church as He sees fit.
Additionally, I don't think we are doing those we lead any favors by calling ourselves pastors. Read this article to find out some more information about church history and role and office of pastors. Warning! You may never look at your pastor the same. . .
The emerging church phenomenon, like all preceding reform/renewal movements, has emphasized a bundle of Christian “its” and “things,” instead of the Person of Jesus Christ.
In my opinion, if we were to examine the broad canvas of Christian movements and denominations throughout church history, we would discover that each one paints with a very fine brush. For one movement, the brush is evangelism. For another, it is social justice and acts of mercy. For another, it is praise and worship. For another, it is Bible study and doctrinal/theological accuracy. For another, it is the power of God, the gifts of the Spirit, signs and wonders. For another, it is changing the political system. For another, it is spiritual warfare and intercessory prayer. For another, it is personal prophecy. For still another, it is end-time theology (eschatology). And on and on it goes. All of these brushes represent Christian “things.” And they are just that . . . “things.” They are Christian “its.” Subjects about the Lord with which to become engaged, at best. Or with which to become obsessed, at worst.
This hits the nail on the head for me. I think Viola says something to those on the emerging journey that expresses what I’ve felt. For all the talk about community, community is not Christ. For all the talk about leadership, our leaders are not Christ. For all the talk about Postmodernism, it is not Christ. For all the talk about liturgy, liturgy is not Christ. For all the talk about our “contexts”, they are merely the expression of a group of individuals filled with Christ. Without Christ, our context means nothing.
My own critique inserted here is that we are much more likely to quote McLaren and Nouwen then we are Jesus. If you don’t believe me check your blogs.
In conclusion, I guess I don’t consider myself “emerging”. I think some of the people that consider themselves leaders in the emerging church are awesome people on a deep journey with God. But, I don’t care for some of the forms, rituals and obligations that those leaders espouse. The expression of the fullness of Christ that resides in me can express itself in any number of ways and I refuse to limit it by slapping a label on it. I am a Christ-follower. Plain and simple.
If some of this is incoherent, I apologize. Much was written at work in the middle of the night.... I look forward to wrestling through these issues. . .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
