Your Church is too small

Many years ago, there was a book titled Your God Is Too Small. I've been thinking about how churches are too small. The megachurches are especially too small.

You see, we tend to think of "our" church as simply the group we may gather with on Sundays. George Barna 'documents' millions who've 'left' the church. And we live and breath as if the churches we attend are "ours", though we mouth that they belong to Jesus.

But it's interesting that while there are 33 references to churches in the New Testament, there are 112 to "church". Most of those 33 references refer to churches across multiple cities. There is no clear example of referring to churches within a single city. This despite historical evidence that in many areas, churches met in homes. It seems to imply that groups meeting in different homes in the same city were considered a part of the same church.

We tend to think of a church, or at least practice church, as being a club we join. We talk of "placing membership" (a club mentality). Our churches add amenities, they offer programs, they approach ministry as being some centralized bureaucracy. To do anything for the club, you pretty much have to be a faithful attender, go through some screening of the church, et al. I'm increasingly seeing this as all such small thinking.

Acts tells us that the Lord added the first disciples to the church. The church is the body of Christ, not the bodies of Christ.

The book So You Don't Want To Go To Church Anymore presents an image of church that is so much larger. It shows it as a community of believers that live beyond the clubs we've formed. It is a beautiful picture in my mind.

We need to adopt a mentality that every disciple is a member of our church, and treat him as such. We need to get beyond our club mentality. It'll mean practicing more hospitality, being less programmatic and open about our ministries. It will mean that some of us don't attend the same "church" two Sundays in a row, or even the same one more than once per month. It may lead to the collapse of some churches. More meeting in homes.

You see, your church is every disciple around you. Every disciple you meet while working in a strange city away from home.

Such an approach to thinking is new to me. Something mouthed about church that I'm really beginning to digest. It undermines, I'm discovering, much of what I've previously written in this part of the blogosphere. Much to revisit about the thinking on "redemptive community". There's still a place, I believe, for walking with a "core", to having a community within this larger church.

I'd love responses. I'd love input. Write, comment, whichever.

Detoxing

Sorry that no one has posted here in awhile. At the beginning of May, I went to a "Advanced Boot Camp" held by Ransomed Heart Ministries. A lot to unpack for myself, some related to the themes of this blog site. After that, I've come across some books that I want to blog on as well as I've unpacked them.

I have much to say on this blog on some things that come to mind, as I finally organize it in my head and have time, but you may have noticed the only change to this site since the last blog (April 21), a link to an article on detoxing. I wanted to say a few words about it and thoughts it sparks. I have much more to say on this, and some of it will come out in future blogs --

As for myself, having read that article, I realize now that I continue to detox from the consumerism idol that has penetrated the church, though it is much more than consumerism. Ultimately it is about connecting to Jesus directly rather than through a proxy we call "church".

When I started what I recognize as the detox process, it was about leaving the IC for "something better". God frustrated that "something better". There are some guys who I talk with via e-mail and by phone on occasion who are going through the same process, or almost the same. We feel called to something more, and for some of us that means detoxing as a step, though maybe some of us may not realize that. Some have been on a journey much longer than me, some were or are considering something like "detoxing". Some are looking to "detox" from within "the walls of a church".

I actually met about half the group face to face (not all at once -- we couldn't corral them together) at Advanced about a month ago. About a half dozen of us were talking with Craig. Craig made some excellent points about what church is. Our mindset is so often about church being something we go to, something that has authority in our lives, it is hard to break from that kind of thinking. But church is what Jesus adds us to. It's the body. "church" can happen anywhere, anytime we are with other disciples. Really got me thinking about what church is in a new light.

God has led me through a journey since that time that has solidified much of it. I read So You Don't Want to Go to Church Anymore and The Shack. Conversations with people. My own conclusion is that the church is out there, but your church is too small if you think it is a gathering of people in a home, coffee shop or a building that holds thousands.

It is in humility now that I submit the question to God: how do you wish me to engage with the church?

I know that however I do it, it's about relationships. Maybe God will bring it to my neighborhood. Maybe I need to engage with some of these so called "churches" out there that have at least some disciples and not just attenders or followers of a senior pastor personality. Who knows? God. And I'm listening.

Story telling

I remember hearing Dan Allendar teach on story at a conference in April of 2006. Wonderful conference. At one point, he was illustrating a point about story by telling a part of his own story. A Christian was trying to teach him, and Dan confronted him with "tell me a story, not facts". Allendar has found that understanding comes from stories, not a list of facts.

Story has been described as the language of the heart. I know that some of my greatest growth as a Christian has not come from purely "knowledge" studies, but rather from hearing the stories of others. The Bible itself is mostly a collection of stories -- I believe I heard an estimate of 70% of it being story. I think that's low.

Story sharing should be more a part of our gatherings. As it is, most weeks the only one who can tell a story is the guy controlling the monologue sermon, if that is the type of church you go to (the majority of them). Some have "testimonal time", but we need to be much broader -- though the word "share a testimony" is used, when done in corporate settings it is more often "tell your testimony" not share.

When story sharing is incorporated into our gathering, we come to realize that our stories are an extension of what we read in scripture. And scripture becomes the backdrop of our stories. Rather than some artificially arrived at "six steps to a better marriage" derived from scripture (or contrived from), we see God's story continuing into our lives. We become encouraged and are spurred on by such a perspective.

I don't know how this is done for gatherings of 25 or more. Love to hear ideas of how to have a free flow sharing of stories of our lives in larger gatherings, as that is the way most churches are constructed. Sometimes our stories are unfolding as we share them. How's this done in large settings?

Maybe it can't. Maybe our central gatherings need to be what is advocated on these pages -- small gatherings of a handful.

The medium is the message (perhaps Part 1)

Though when I started this blog site and invited others to blog with me around the thoughts of redemptive community, I did have some preconceived notions of what it would look like. I had even written a "manifesto" describing a kind of structure and operation.

No more on those preconceptions though. Some reading of Neil Cole, Alan Hirsch, and Michael Frost, and now some Leonard Sweet, has me thinking in the two lines as I approach this:
1) contextualizing the church to a culture -- this requires understanding what are the core purposes and values of what a church should be, and understanding a culture.
2) understanding the medium is the message. Simplified a bit, this means actions speak louder than words.

I spoke before on this last one, where I visited a church meeting of 25, where we spent 45 minutes in song before a guy spoke on how this was a family. The medium -- sitting in chairs, facing the back of the head of person's in front of us, singing then hearing a monologue sermon, spoke much louder than his words.

So what do our standard mediums speak about our message? Some examples that run us into trouble --
1) Peter wrote that we are a priesthood of all believers. The Hebrew writer wrote that Jesus is our high priest to whom we can approach directly. Yet a very common practice is to make a "clergy class" between us and Jesus. This clergy class is very much like a priesthood that stands between us and God. Paul wrote that apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers (all to commonly lumped together and called just "pastors" as a group nowadays) are for equipping the church. They are authorities in the sense that they with God help us become who we are meant to be, not "lord it over" us.
2) all our life is to be worship, yet we create distinct times of the week to call worship, and create separate spaces as "sacred".
3) Jesus called us to be active worshipers, participants, and contributers. Paul wrote about "orderly" assemblies in I Corinthians 14. Yet we've seen "orderly" changed to "ordered" to the point of having a script for our gatherings. We are called in assemblying together to encourage one another, admonish one another, to spur one another on to love and good deeds. But the custom has grown to be centered along a scripted service that runs somewhere from 60 to 120 minutes, where most show up no more than 5 minutes before and those who linger do so no more than 15 minutes and talk about the weather or the immediate past sporting events or the one coming up that afternoon or other trivia.
4) A typical church's "small groups" program consist of people gathering and studying some curriculum for six weeks to 12 weeks. And the small group "script" must be followed and a 12 week study must be completed in 12 weeks. What does this medium teach? That knowledge is more important than loving others. Spending time of a session with someone in need is not allowed under this format. I fear that the message of the medium to many is that knowledge of God is more important that loving and knowing God.

IF our gatherings and discipleship approaches are to speak of the Christ, what would they look like?

Security

I've had a number of posts I have wanted to do, all reasonably long so I have to find a chunk of time to do them. But this one is one of those that if I don't do it soon, I'll lose the thoughts ...

A few years ago, David Murrow wrote a book called Why Men Hate Going to Church. Decent book, which in my opinion only has a partial diagnosis and is woefully short on prognosis and solutions. Part of the diagnosis is that the church focuses on a few points that ends up chasing men away. One of these is "security". The modern church is big on providing a secure environment. Just how far this has gone has become painfully clear recently.

I live about a mile north of New Life Church in Colorado Springs. A few months back, a gunman came on their campus on a Sunday, and ended up shot to death by an armed security guard. With this being a church of thousands, I have no problem with that. Actually doesn't surprise me -- years ago I volunteered with a church's benevolence program, and we had a female cop with us as one volunteer. Came to find out in time that she had been encouraged to always bring her gun (concealed of course) with her while attending church and volunteering -- something I was glad about the night we were assigned together to interview a woman who came looking for help who was clearly schizophrenic and we worried she might be a danger.

But now the news comes out that the senior pastor of New Life has been talking about security at pastors' conferences and consulting on the issue of security. He is encouraging churches to have armed security forces. Apparently he is even encouraging churches to consider having metal detectors and handbag searches at the doors.

What we must realize though, is that the medium is the message. What do armed security forces visibly patrolling properties say? It reinforces a fortress mentality of churches. It says to the world this is an us vs you situation. It sends so many wrong messages.

And to me, it reinforces the message that churches are selling security in the first place. I believe an unspoken, implied message of so much of what passes as church is selling security. Come to church somewhat approximating weekly, tithe, etc and feel secure in your eternal destination. Now, I know what is said, but the medium is the message, or in older terms, actions speak louder than words. When membership "covenants" or however expectations are spelled out occur, the message ends up being eternal security in exchange for being a good member, despite our words about grace vs works.

Truthfully, though, the walk of a follower is about having eternal life now. There are no promises about security and safety. In the U.S. we get a false image of things -- worldwide, by some estimates, 1 in 200 who profess to be Christian will die a martyr's death. When you take out of those numbers the Americans and others who don't live in countries where Christians are physically threatened, those numbers get frightening. And even in the U.S., being a follower of Christ can threaten one's economic security in certain career fields -- Hollywood, politics (in certain states), fields with high percentages of homosexuality among those in the field, higher education, etc. Traditional churches will not readily appeal to those in some industries, nor the way the culture is going, it will not appeal to future generations. What is needed, whether we realize it or not, is something resembling the underground churches of China and India.

While this is not a reason to pursue redemptive communities, which should be pursued for their own merits, it is a benefit evangelically. Small communities provide a better medium for the message than the megachurches, and are more likely to survive the future than the megastructures.

Is the business world discovering the truth? Redux

Related: http://redemptivecommunities.blogspot.com/2008/01/is-business-discovering-right-model.html

Came across some reading on leadership styles within business, and some modern theories basically say there needs to be a mix of five styles of leadership with different balances needed during different phases of a business's life cycle.

1) The entrepreneur, the groundbreaker and strategist who initiates
2) The questioner, who disturbs the status quo and challenges a business to move differently
3) The recruiter, who takes the organization's message to the outside and sells it.
4) The humanizer, who cares for those inside the organization
5) The systemizer, who articulates the structure and company policies etc to those inside the organization.

Interestingly, the apostle Paul wrote about five roles of those equipping the church, which could be defined as:
1) The apostle, who pioneers new missions and oversees their initial development
2) The prophet, who discerns the spiritual reality of a situation and communicates them in a timely fashion to prompt needed change
3) The evangelist, who communicates the gospel message in a way to prompt response
4) The pastor, who cares for those in the church.
5) The teacher, who communicates the teachings of Christ.

In both cases and in many ways, these are functions more than offices or roles, and some may contribute to more than one function at times.

Interesting the obvious parallels?

Most traditional churches in the West, however, seem to have suppressed the apostle, prophet, and evangelist roles in favor of the pastor and teacher roles. Many of the APE roles are to be found functioning, it seems though, outside the church, in parachurch ministries.

Businesses that don't have the balance of leadership appropriate for their phase of the life cycle are typically ones in trouble. ...

Walking with God part deux

I ask all the readers of this blog/note to visit this website and prayerfully consider attending either a live event, or the yet to be announced (as I write this) simulcast.

http://www.ransomedheart.com/ministry/walkingwithgodtour.aspx

Walking With God

I've been wanting this week to briefly review Walking With God, John Eldredge's new book and tying it to community.



In WWG, John opens his journals and life from a recent year and discusses how he walked with God in that year. He shows how he pursued God, how God pursued him, the battles, the conversation with God, etc. Though for years (decades?) I pursued my walk as one of accumulating knowledge, in the last five years or so I've come around, came from knowing much about God to knowing God. Conversational intimacy is possible, and John illustrates it (and the struggles with it) in his book. I've found story much more powerful at transforming my life these last few years, definitely more so than theology and theory. Hearing these stories (again in some cases -- I worked with John's ministry in the middle of the year recorded in the book) help me see how I can too develop a bond with God.

A little more than a decade ago, I learned a lot about church from a man named Ronnie. A few of my favorite quips that I use are from him. One I don't use so often that I recall hearing is that most churches mostly consist of people who know people who know people who know people that know God. In other words, churches too often consist in attendance of mostly people some distant from a personal relationship of God. Sort of like the six degrees of Kevin Bacon (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Degrees_of_Kevin_Bacon if you don't get the reference) except with God and relationships instead of Bacon and acting. Sadly, it is often more than six degrees. Now, must people in churches know something about God, often a great deal, but real relationship they are farther off.

There is some evidence that this wasn't the case in the first couple of centuries after Christ's visit to earth. In fact, since persecution frequently occurred, often it was tough to get into a church! One often came to know God first, before they were told a when and where. While short of practicing the same (such as Christians in China, India, and many muslim lands may need to practice the same), what if we did practice something closer to that? Do we lose something in the "attractional" mode of evangelism, where we expect others to join us then know God? What if we knew God, helped others to meet him, then included him in our communities?

And what if in knowing God, we followed his direction and guidance in forming community in the first place? Rather than follow centuries old traditions that began centuries after Christ (see the book Pagan Christianity for some documentation of it), what if we walked with God and let him guide us to community? In other words, what if we took Christ at his word? Look again and scriptures and see that Christ instructed us to love and to train and teach others. He said he'd build his church -- we have no such instructions to build a church. If we would just love and teach, and let God form the communities ...

Secular v spiritual revisited

Last night I finished John Eldredge's new book, Walking With God, and I'm also in process of reading Frank Laubach's Letters from a Modern Mystic. Both gave me some new thoughts as it pertains to this topic. (I actually have another blog post to do later this week that relates WWG to RC more directly).

John Eldredge is relatively well-known, so I won't go into who he is, but Laubach was a missionary to the Philippines in the 30's who entered an experiment of connecting each minute of his life to God. He wrote of this to his dad, and those letters were published in a small volume in 1937.

I'm read so far about six months into Laubach's attempt, but the last letter I read of his sparked the thought -- this is really about bringing the kingdom of God into each and every moment of our lives. Thinking of God practically in parallel to each moment and thought we have ... this is a way of bringing the kingdom of heaven to our lives.

If we did this, what would happen to our "dedicated" times to God? Our quiet times? I think they'd radically change, wouldn't they? Many days, they'd be much shorter. They may focus on other spiritual disciplines than they do now (more reading and studying for instance, and less prayer). As a community, this ingraining of spirituality in everything we do, what would that do to our gatherings?

I wonder if they wouldn't bring more missional aspects to our corporate gatherings. If we are always thinking of God outside the gatherings, we are likely to attach more of God to our other activities and bring more of our outside activities into our "oasis" that is our gatherings. We bring needs and opportunities we might not have spotted without this constant connection, and seek more equipping to handle them, to reach others, to bring redemption to "real life".

But that could only work if our gatherings allowed some very open communication. An order of worship, a monologue teaching, a song service as we typically have them -- how do we express this missional aspect with so much "orderedliness" in our gatherings? Order is appropriate, but orderliness?

Just a pondering ...

Structure

A common misconception (or related argument) about "redemptive communities" or "organic church" is that it is anarchy, that the lack of being an institutional church means there is no structure. This isn't true. In fact, structure is necessary. It is just the nature of the structure that is different.

Structures are needed, but they must be simple, reproducible and internal rather than external. Every living thing is made up of structure and systems. Your body has a nervous system, a circulatory system, and even a skeletal system to add structure to the whole. The universe and nature itself teach us that order is possible even when there is no control but God Himself.

(Neil Cole http://www.cmaresources.org/articles/simple_structures.asp)

As indicated by Cole, the structure is to come from the inside out, endoskelton, as opposed to the institutional church's typical exoskeleton. Institutional structures are focused on preserving the institution, to keep it around as long as possible. The Bible speaks constantly of the church and kingdom in organic terms. Leadership should be about growing structure, not imposing it.

As Curtis Sergeant (expert on the Chinese underground church) notes

In regard to church-planting patterns, external human control over the new converts and churches is inversely proportional to the potential growth and rate of growth in terms of both maturity and size. If a church planter or agency or denomination or other entity seeks to exercise authority to a great extent, then the new church and its members will tend to be dependent and not take responsibility for their own growth or for reaching others. Every time you are tempted to micro-manage, remember this principle. (emphasis mine)

David Garrison observes something similar

Denominations and church structures that impose a hierarchy of authority or require bureaucratic decision-making are ill-suited to hand the dynamism of a ... movement. It is important that every cell or house church leader has all the authority required to do whatever needs to be done in terms of evangelism, ministry, and new church planting without seeking approval from a church hierarchy.

I think another way to look at it is the old saying (maybe not so old) -- first your ministry shapes your building, then your building shapes your ministry. What we don't recognize is other structures, in terms of control, sustainment, etc. shape and restrict ministry as well. We need to let structure come from inside, not imposed from outside.

Postmodernism and the church

Gathering some thoughts on postmodernism:

My first exposure to postmodernism had been with a church plant I was a part of in Texas, and on its leadership team. We started out (long story on how this happened) as consisting about 40% early-30 somethings with kids and another 40% early to mid 20-somethings, around 1998. The larger church culture was just discovering the need to rethink itself in reaching postmodern influenced thinkers.

A few years later, I was initially on the launch team for Vintage 21, now located in downtown Raleigh NC. Vintage 21 targets postmoderns there and in the greater Research Triangle area. I ended up leaving V21 when the launch team moved its meetings, and later its initial services, to Sunday evenings – I had prior commitments to honor then.

Another few years later, from 2004-2006, I was around a top postmodern thinker and author at his church in Burtonsville MD. Though his theology tended toward liberalism, I found it good to be about challenging thinking that I disagreed with. He eventually left his post at that church to focus on writing and so he could accept the numerous speaking requests he was getting.

So, postmodernism is not a new concept to me.

A “feature” of postmodernism has been a fracturing of our culture. Those who study culture have noted that over the centuries, especially into the 19^th and 20^th century as transportation and communication speeds increased, the number of distinct cultures fell. But in the late 20^th century to now, the number of distinct cultures, especially so called “sub-cultures” have been multiplying. Postmodernism is one reason, aided by technologies such as cable and satellite TV (more options mean less “unifying” cultural features, like back when we only had three TV networks), and the internet.

Many in the church (universal) have realized the need to change that which we can change around our unchangeable core truths in order to reach the world that is increasingly postmodern. Common techniques include switching the old emphasis on forgiveness of sins (not that it isn’t a part of the message still) to the emphasis on impacting the culture and world about us (John 14:12, et al), changing the “feel” of our spaces, and other changes of the facades we have. And this has had some success, typically among those postmoderns who grew up in the church.

But what of those postmoderns who didn’t grow up in the church? Ralph Winter, a pioneering missiologist (a person who studied missionary techniques and methods), a few years ago introduced the concept of cultural distance. It is a measure of how far a people-group (a culture) is from a meaningful engagement with the gospel. A cultural distance of 0 means a person can be brought to a meaningful engagement without removal of a cultural barrier. A distance of 1 would mean the need to navigate past or remove one barrier. A different language, for instance, adds 1 to the cultural distance score.

Those who grew up in the church may typically only have a cultural distance of 1. Thus the common techniques churches use, such as a special service for 20 somethings, may remove that barrier. But these common techniques are limited to those whose cultural distance is typically 0 to 1, maybe 2.

So how can the gospel reach those with higher cultural distance? We must realize that most of our thoughts on how church is done are themselves cultural adaptations, and not core to being “church”. Sadly, many have bought into various prooftexting arguments (isolating a single verse without full context, or combining several verses from different contexts) to make the case for these cultural adaptations. George Barna and Frank Viola have written an excellent treatise on this entitled Pagan Christianity. Once freed from these biases of church, we must realize that church is merely meant to be a community of disciples engaging in corporate activities on behalf of the kingdom of God, led by the Holy Spirit. So rather than trying to attract those in the subcultures to our current churches, the key seems to be to inject Christ into the subcultures and redeem that community to be a community for Christ.

What does this look like? There are numerous examples around the world of this (see The Forgotten Ways by Alan Hirsch for a discussion of these). The common elements seem to be to have high expectations of those who become disciples, and a low cost to planting a church. The result is disciples on the fringes of one subculture scatter seed into another subculture, and teach and train the disciples there, giving birth to another church. These small communities are typically 8-20 in size, and often network with other fellowships in the same or nearby (geographically and cultural distance wise) subcultures.

The traditional church as we have known it is limited in its ability to reach these various subcultures. The high cost (in time, staff, and money) and limited ability to cross cultures from the “central” target culture (typically no more than a cultural distance of 2) handicaps the old methodology of church planting for kingdom growth. The emphasis needs to be on disciple making, and let the churches emerge from that effort. This requires a change in our “services” and meetings, as the passive nature of most in attendance fuels a heretical “consumerist” version of Christianity. This probably looks like more small meetings, and rare large meetings, with the expectation on those present to participate, not too unlike we see in I Corinthians 14.

Not unlike redemptive communities.

Secular v spiritual

Well, I've been thinking on post-modernism and how that relates to redemptive community, so I thought that would be the next post from me, and it may come tonight or in the next couple of days, but on the way to that one ...

Secular is not a word that occurs in biblical Hebrew or Greek, it is a more modern "thought" invention. Spirituality permeates all, as should our faith. (This is something post-modern thinkers seem to get).

A common mistake that we see more traditional churches is creating very distinct "space" (here, I use the term more broadly than just physical, though that is involved here). We see buildings unlike any other in their architecture, we see clothes and songs commonly unlike any others (less so with the "seeker sensitive" services), atmosphere unlike the "real" world, etc. Even the teaching is unlike other forums (usually you interact more in 'secular' settings). "Worship services", as practiced, are so disconnected. So even when the sermon is "relevant", we struggle to connect Sunday morning (the typical time for services) with Monday morning and the rest of the week.

Right now, my wife and I are looking at taking our tax refunds and use them to put hardwood down in the living and dining rooms (connected continuous space there). The issue is that the kitchen and foyer are already hardwood, and connect directly to the living room (foyer) and dining room (kitchen). The favored option would be to "feather" in the new boards into the old hardwood, and refinish the whole thing to make it look as it was all done at the same time.

How could we redo the spiritual space and "feather" it into the so called secular space? How do we take our "Sunday morning" time and make it more relevant to Monday? I think a key is to make our "spaces" less distinct. Then we can more readily apply the spiritual to the secular.

In forming redemptive communities, it is something to be mindful of.

The Great Commission

It is common for churches to make "mission" and/or "vision" statements nowadays. And almost all somehow embed a reworking of the instruction of Jesus known as "The Great Commission" into these statements.

Interesting, though, that the Great Commission is somehow, some way, commonly mistranslated.

In the Greek Matthew 28:19-20 reads poreuqenteV oun maqhteusate panta ta eqnh baptizonteV autouV eiV to onoma tou patroV kai tou uiou kai tou agiou pneumatoV didaskonteV autouV threin panta osa eneteilamhn umin kai idou egw meq umwn eimi pasaV taV hmeraV ewV thV sunteleiaV tou aiwnoV

(letters transliterated as best can be done -- not sure how to create Greek fonts here -- see http://www.greeknewtestament.com/B40C028.htm#V18 for better Greek).

A purely literal translation, as best I can tell (I took a bit of classical Greek in college, studying a period of the language from about 4th century BC): "having gone, then, teach (or train) all the nations, baptizing them -- to the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all, whatever I did command you, and lo, I am with you all the days -- till the full end of the age."

We see two distinctions. Where most translations say "Go", as in "Go!", the Greek could be translated, perhaps more accurately "as you go", or "as you live your lives". Less debatable than that, however, is that the Greek does not say "make disciples", but rather, "teach the nations", or "train others" in a more modern-speak.

Why does this matter?

I let the reader decide on the distinction of "Go" and "as you live your lives", for the sake of brevity. But let's focus on the latter. The biggest difference is one of responsibility and burden. The more literal "teach the nations" are simple instructions for our actions. "Make disciples" however, puts a production burden on us. One that is not in the source Greek!

So, our burden should be to instruct and train others. Numbers are not ours to worry about, which "make disciples" implies. The impact on churches and communities, I believe, is that we wouldn't worry about measuring ourselves in terms of numbers, but rather simply teach. The depth of the disciple development, I believe, would be much fuller.

One final note. Churches need to realize the Great Commission was not given to them, but to disciples. Churches often try to measure how the body is doing from a corporate sense, rather than how the disciples within are doing. I've known not a few pastors who encourage their congregations to bring others so they can teach them. The teaching is instructions to disciples, not the "staff of the church". Ephesians 4 shows us that those gifted at being apostles, evangelists, teachers, pastors, etc are for the "equipping of the church", not doing the work of the church.

Red Pill Redux

A few years ago, Frank Viola wrote a book entitled Pagan Christianity. It was a very well researched book, but it was written as propaganda material for house churches. I liked it, but I always hesitated to recommend it due to its propaganda elements.

Viola has since joined forces with George Barna, and jointly they've rewritten the book. Released last month, I finally got a copy last Thursday. I'm about half way through reading it. It is a much stronger book. The propaganda elements are gone; instead of Viola making a case for house churches at the end of each chapter, Barna and Viola close each chapter with anticipated questions and answers about elements of the chapter. What the book does is take a number of standard church practices and show the history of how they came to be, and why you should question and challenge their practice. Then they leave you alone to decide. They don't make both sides of the argument, just show how the practice was introduced from culture, how it has evolved, and then say why they believe the practice is either wrong biblically, detrimental to discipleship and church life as God intended, or both.

Among the topics covered are the practice of churches owning buildings, building design, the spectator nature of the modern Western church, the rise of clergy, the role of pastor, music, the sermon, "dressing up" and other "costumes", etc.

If you want to "take the red pill", or you want someone you know to, Pagan Christianity may just be the pill for many people. Ironically, the cover is red.

The surfing parable

I think that is a great parable. I think surfing itself is a great parable, in general, ...

Laird Hamilton is one of the best there ever was at surfing (some may know him as Gabrielle Reese's husband, despite that). The wave he rode in that was captured in that clip (from the movie Riding Giants) was a type believed to be unrideable. Note, he didn't plan to ride such a wave that day. He didn't plan on how he would ride such a wave eventually. He was prepared, but he didn't plan.

I've never surfed, but I think surfing is such a parable to being what we need to be. I've seen enough documentaries on surfing and other surfing movies to know that the philosophy of the successful surfer is to prepare, 'cause you can't plan enough. The church makes plans, when it needs to make preparations. We can't plan for every possibility, but with God we can prepare for any possibility.

Some hold back from redemptive community because the inexperience with such concepts they feel they can plan well enough. We need not plan, just prepare to ride the waves to come.

Family???

I've been cruising through churches, looking for a temporary home for some level of fellowship while I also look at building redemptive community, something that anyone I've come across who's attempted it says is very hard and it takes a fight to achieve.

The one I went to this morning on a trial basis would have been funny if it weren't sad.

They sang for 45 minutes (!) before the sermon, which was mercifully short. It was about fellowship. The guy's talking about the need for it, and that we all desire family. That we are family. When he talked of this church as being a family, I almost fell out of my chair. At the same time, it was like a revelation.

You see, we just spent 45 minutes staring at the back of the heads of people in front of us. Then these envelopes were passed out as he made announcements, and then buckets went around for collecting the envelopes -- the offering. And then we listen to him speak, a monologue, for a few minutes, otherwise staring at the back of heads of those in front of us.

Does that sound like a typical family Sunday get together to you? While I grew up far from extended family, the exception was until I was about five. Until I was about five or six, my maternal grandparents and three of their adult kids lived nearby. So pretty much every Sunday at lunch we went to the grandparents house with the eight adults (all kids married) and by the time I was five there were six of us grandkids. Sometimes the bachelor uncle from Baton Rouge drove up for the weekend and joined us. Even though one of my uncles was a preacher, we never sat in the position of staring at each other heads, doing something besides talking to and with each other.

Church "family"? Most are not like even disfunctional families I know.

Is business discovering the right model?

Ever notice that the church has been following predominant secular models since about the fourth century? Oh, we find a way to justify it through a selective reading of scripture, but still, would you believe it coincidence?

We see it in recent years as churches go for "visions statements" "missions", values, etc. This was, still is to an extent, a model borrowed from business. Rick Warren perfected it and tailored it for a church with his "Purpose Driven Model".

We see it in churches where the Sr Pastor and "elders" or what ever a particular church calls it operating awfully similar to a CEO and a board of directors. Hmm.

Looking at older churches, we can see denominations founded in earlier centuries follow predominant models of their time. The Roman Catholic church has its Pope, Cardinals, etc, which if you study the Roman government of the time, you see parallels in the way the Romans ran the politics of the time and the way the Roman Catholic church operates now, with a pope instead of a Caesar, etc.

But I wonder if a new business trend is possibly a very biblical model, and this is a great time for the church to copy again.

In the natural world, there is a beautiful sense of design and order, but no apparent "authority". Social architectures have noted this, and are proposing new social orders that some businesses are starting to adopt. As Dee Hock, founder of VISA notes, "Purpose and principle, clearly understood and articulated, and commonly shared, are the genetic code of any healthy organization. To the degree you hold purpose and principles in common among you, you can dispense with command and control. People will know how to behave in accordance with them, and they'll do it in thousands of unimaginable, creative ways. The organization will become a vital, living set of beliefs".

This is a business management theory, but it comes from a careful study of the order of God's universe. God's universe is both out of control and ordered. There is order in chaos and structure without control. Is this the next model for the church to follow? Was it the one it should have been following all along?

Is this a part of the model of redemptive communities?

To me, from what I read of the underground churches of China, India, and those in Muslim countries, this sounds like what is occurring there.

Spiritual mature dissatisfied with church?

Last year, the results of a survey of 7 churches, including Willow Creek Community Church, was done by the Willow Creek Association. The study surprised Willow Creek, but those more sensitive to the "splinter in the mind" would perhaps not be so surprised.

The full report can be found here and its "sublinks": http://revealnow.com/storyPage.asp?pageID=12

Most "surprising":
Increased church activity does not led to spiritual maturity
The more spiritual mature were more dissatisfied with their church experience

I think the first comes from an unspoken misconception that church activity is necessarily spiritual activity, that church-centrality equates to being centered on Christ. The latter is in part due to this too, as the spiritual mature come to know this intuitively and are unhappy about it.

This is a discovery of the Matrix that we call the [traditional] church, IMO. We've replaced disciple making with church planting, though we dare not admit it we've replaced Christ centerness with church centerness. Jesus said I will build my church, and He instructed us to make disciples. We've found a way to take charge of the former and neglected the latter.

What we need to do, whether the result is "redemptive communities" or some other form, is find a way to let go and let Jesus do what he said he would do when it comes to the church. What does that look like?

(what follows is a paraphrasing a part of a chapter from Neil Cole's Organic Church)

From Matthew 16: "and I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build MY church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it".

Jesus builds the church -- Jesus builds it. Not an innovative approach, a personality, a vision statement, etc

Jesus owns the church -- Jesus bought the church with his blood.

The church is meant to be growing -- the church Jesus builds should be experience spiritual growth, and seeing new souls is a part of that. Doesn't mean each local church should be growing- most warm-blooded things grow to a point then reproduce - reproduction is a form of growth.

the church that is growing will face opposition -- Jesus warned that we would face opposition. If a church is truly alive and growing (see above), hell is opposing it. A preacher once said "If you wake up in the morning and don't run into the enemy head on, then maybe you're going the wrong direction". To quote a WWII bomber pilot, "If you are taking flak, you are over the target".

The church Jesus builds is unstoppable -- in the Two Towers, Theoden retreats into Helm's Deep, despite Aragorn's admonishment to ride out and meet the enemy head on. The battle turns when Theoden finally does ride out rather than defend the fortress, and the enemy is taken back. Reinforcement also arrives soon afterwards.

Hade's Gates will not stand -- hmm, gates are defensive. You don't see a dog wearing a sign that says "Beware of Gate". You don't have a seven day waiting period to buy a gate. The Kingdom is meant to advance, not sit on its butts in a "worship service". Where are a church's resources tied up?

(end paraphrasing)

Again, we are meant to be about disciple making. That implies a very simple, almost "natural" form of "church", so we can focus on what Jesus told us to be about - discipling the nations (Matthew 28:18-20).

Glamor Shot or True Snapshot?

All my life I have dealt with this same splinter in my mind. From the days of my youth it seemed there was a real question that possessed me after being raised in Church in the South, the Bible Belt. In my youth and early days of dealing with the nagging agony of this splinter, the question--As the church, can we really be what we read on the pages of the Bible (especially the Church we see in Acts 19 concerning the Ephesian church) or is this just a glamor shot? You know, one of those photographs where someone used to go to one of these mall shops and get all 'glamored' up and get their picture made. I once was in a church member's house who had this done...it was a woman. She was telling me about the experience and I looked at the picture. It looked nothing like her and I blurted out, "That's you!"

You see it was her, but it wasn't the real person that the people around her knew her to be. Too often, I am afraid the world looks at the church matrix today in its made up forms and and it is so pale in comparison to the Church as seen in the Bible and the world concludes that all this life is just a 'glamor shot' and not really a force to know and truly live out.

But I think this is beginning to change and many are being called out by God from the church matrix just like Neo in the movie. People are truly wrestling through a great deal of 'holy discontent' that is really a calling from Father God to step into fresh waters related to His activity in birthing the 'real deal' in our modern society. He is taking back his true Church and as a friend of mine use to say long before Barna's book Revolution...it is going to be a revolution and its going to get ugly and bloody before its over with. But in its climax it will be the picture of Jesus and the Kingdom that will be used to bring so many fatherless hearts home where they belong...to the end of that long road home where the Father is waiting on the front porch just waiting to run and meet each son and daughter who take that journey to his house!

The Red Pill

"The Matrix is everywhere. It is all around us, even now in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window, or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work, when you go to church, when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you to the truth."
"what truth?"
"That you are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else, you were born into bondage, born into a prison that you cannot smell or taste or touch. A prison for your mind.".
So states Morpheus in a famous scene from The Matrix. After opening a small silver box and pulling two pills from it, Morpheus continues.
"This is your last chance. After this, there is no going back. You take the blue pill, the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to. You take the red pill, you stay in wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes."

and Neo takes the red pill.


But before the pills decision, Neo faced another choice. Kidnapped, Neo is offered the chance to leave, but Trinity asks him to trust. Neo asks why he should. Looking down a street being pounded by rain, Trinity says "Because you have been down there, Neo. You know that road. You know exactly where it ends. And I know that's not where you want to be".

slowly Neo gets back in the car.

Looking down the road of conventional church in America, you are looking down a soggy street. How compelling is it, really? More vision statements, shows called worship, building and capital fund raisers. Is this really what Jesus died for?

You read the New Testament, the account of Acts especially, and wonder why the conventional church pales so in comparison. You hear stories of the church in China, India, and underground in Muslim nations, and wonder at the power. Why not here, where you are?

to adapt what Morpheus says at one point in the movie "Let me tell you why you are here. You are here because you know something. What you know you can't explain. But you feel it. You've felt it your entire life. There is something wrong with the church. You don't know what it is, but it's there, like a splinter in your mind"