|
|
|
|
|
"Despite the almost mantra-like status of the statement "people are leaving the church" there still appears to be little understanding about who is leaving, when they leave, why they leave, and what happens to them and their faith after they leave. Of course everyone has their own view on these issues but few, especially our church leaders, have taken the time to sit down and talk with an actual leaver or two." alan jamieson
I couild have written that one myself, though I haven't spoken to a hundred people about this particular journey. Maybe... twenty.
But what really caught my attention was part two of this article in "Reality Magazine." (Great title eh?)
In part 2 alan jamieson documents his assessment of the whole phenomenon, and I was struck by the parallels to James Fowler's typology of spiritual growth. Hmm.. Got me thinking.
Then, browsing back to the index for the June issue, I found an article by Andrew Pritchard doing exactly that.. applying these findings to a spiritual growth paradigm. Wow.. ! Here is the opening of andrew's article:
"What is the link between faith development and the stream of people who leave the church? For most people the answers cluster around two opposing viewpoints:
· that faulty faith development, inadequate discipling, shaky foundations or half-hearted commitment to the gospel are primary factors, or
· that healthy faith development has led people to outgrow inflexible church structures and practices and unsympathetic or restrictive leaderships.
Is there vinegar in the wine, or are the wineskins so rigid and dry that they have cracked with much of the wine leaking away?
Evidence supporting the second viewpoint is found in the Faith Development model proposed by Professor James Fowler in his book Stages of Faith.1 What light does Fowler's theory throw on the 'church-leaving' trend and what are the implications for church congregations and for ex-church attenders?"
jamieson, MYTHS part 1 posted by Len Hjalmarson |
2:35 PM
At Next Wave Andrew Careaga shared some thoughts coming out of Search Party 2002.
"The Pew study also reported that more than 3 million of us surf the Net daily for spiritual purposes. That makes cyber-spirituality more popular than online auctions, online banking or online dating services. People are using the Internet to enrich their prayer lives, commune with fellow believers, share their faith with non-Christians, and increase their understanding of Christianity's global nature."
Wow!
In his article Andrew tells of his disappointment that most of the pastors and leaders who attended were not interested in understanding our changing culture, but instead were looking to find ways to interact more efficiently with it. In other words, they are interested in increasing their effectiveness.
It seems natural, actually. We inevitably approach any new way of seeing the world from our old way. It's tough be be reborn.
Two of his critical questions follow:
"Is the Internet just a tool, something we can use to manipulate and alter our surroundings, to carve out another niche in the world? No... it's a place in which relationships can occur."
"Instead of debating among ourselves whether authentic community can exist over the Net, why don't we go out into all the world of cyberspace and be part of the community that does indeed exist on the Net? Who knows? Maybe the church can add some authenticity to what's out there."
I like these questions and his suggestions. But I also think that the discussion and debate is important.
We all have different learning styles. Many of us learn effectively through dialogue. At some point we have to actually put our feet in the water, of course, and suspend our old beliefs as we reach out for new ones. But dialogue can lead to new understanding.
There will always be those who can't see the internet as a medium for significant relationships and even change. There will even be those who see the internet as a corruption of real relationships.. as relationship at arm's length. It has its limits, as do all forms of communication. But the potential is also real, and the debate and dialogue about culture and community really are valuable.
posted by Len Hjalmarson |
9:55 AM
I finally placed a new ARTICLE index page online. Yeh, I know.. it took a long time!
Does anyone really seek community? Or do we really seek those like ourselves? Do we really seek to be understood and loved? And if that is what we seek, is the end result community? Are homogenous groups communities, or are they social clubs?
I always thought that the answer was obvious. I considered that the biblical definition of community had to do with breaking down walls between cultures. I therefore excluded the average church in North America from the definition of community. In most churches on Sunday morning people dress, look, and think the same. That has always bothered me.
The two sets of evidence are in Ephesians and Corinthians.
In Ephesians 2:13 and following Paul talks about Jesus having broken down a dividing wall between Jew and Gentile. These cultural differences are set aside, and all are united in one new living Temple by the Spirit. This pushes for a definition of community that is inclusive, crossing cultural boundaries. Neither "Jew nor Greek, male or female," but united in Christ.
In 1 Corinthians 1, however, Paul describes a homogeneous group. "Not many wise, not many mighty, not many noble" are called... I don't think Paul is defining the goal of God's work here, but he is describing what actually exists in Corinth. So it seems that it is possible to be a real community and yet lack the diversity that we associate with a healthy body. This means that a definition of biblical community has no necessary reference to cultural diversity.
That was a surprise to me.
I believe that it is difficult to have a healthy church without some cultural diversity. It's true that it is much easier to love those who are like us. But it's also true that love that crosses natural boundaries is more genuine, because it requires us to move beyond our comfort zone and reach outside ourselves.
Real love often requires a sacrifice, and it often involves risk. It seems to often involve stepping outside our world and entering the world of another. At least.. that's what Jesus did.
But it strikes me that even loving someone more or less like ourselves is risky. My wife and I have much in common... same income, same education, same perspectives on kingdom and culture. Yet we don't always agree, and sometimes our needs conflict. When I reach out beyond my own needs and desires to serve, I am genuinely loving.
posted by Len Hjalmarson |
9:05 AM
"What is love? Will it not be an image?" Augustine, De Trinitate
"Your eyes in mine aglow
What do we really want when we want to know God? Do we want more information? Do we want to understand Him better?
I have found myself praying lately to see His face. But I could care less if I have some image pop into my head.
What I really want is to be touched by His love. I want an inner apprehension of His beauty and glory. I want to touch God, and be touched by Him. I want to experience His love and acceptance. That's what community is all about ("that they may be one, as you and I are one").
It strikes me that this is the heart of all our longing, both in our human relationships and in our relationship with the Father.
"But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image, from one glory to another..." 2 Cor. 3:18
posted by Len Hjalmarson |
9:20 AM
New Way Ministries has been recently founded by Larry Crabb. Larry's journey has been an interesting one. From a cognitive psychological model, he has recently been undergoing something like a second conversion, with a center on love and community.
Larry contrasts an "old way" and a "new way" on his website...
"The old life energizes a dad to want to straighten out his drug-abusing son, to be a good father who does things right. The new life empowers a dad to want above everything else to enjoy God and be abandoned and responsive and honoring to Him even when his son stumbles in the door at four in the morning, buzzed and defiant. Living the new way removes pressure from the dad to “do it right” and relieves the power struggle between father and son. And that opens up possibilities for better relating between them and for wisdom in better responding to a troubled child.
"The old way is all about us and it draws on resources everyone has whether Christian or not. The new way is all about God. Living it requires resources from God available only to Christians. Living the new way attracts outsiders to a life they cannot have apart from Christ but which they discover they desperately want. The old way uses moral principles to make life work, thus reducing morality to pragmatism. The new way trusts God to empower us to enjoy Him as our greatest blessing and reveal Him to others as our highest calling."
Larry's recent books have documented his journey into a new way of seeing the world, and a new way of living in it. Larry admits that much of his life has been centered on his own needs for safety and feeling in control. "Connecting" was the first book to document the changes. More recently, "Shattered Dreams," and "The Pressure's Off" continue the story.
It's been both encouraging and helpful for me to see a new freshness and honesty in Larry's work. The generation above me have sometimes impressed me with their intellectual abilities, but I have not always felt drawn to their leadership or their lives. But the kind of courage shown by Larry is a hopeful sign and a new kind of leadership. This draws me and challenges me. Thank God for this honesty and courage!
posted by Len Hjalmarson |
10:20 AM
Much of my life has been spent searching for simplicity. I've often felt the the gospel and my life are far too complicated. I guess I've even felt that the world seems too complicated. I've wanted to find the center, to see through to the essentials. I have searched for understanding.
Today I wonder if my search has been in the wrong direction. I wonder if reality can ever be truly simple. I wonder whether in fact complexity isn't the way of things.
Consider a single living cell. The complexity is incredible, and that is only on the level of what we can see, and the chemical interactions. A single HUMAN cell has been compared in complexity to the city of New York. Life is enormously complex.
Moving from micro to macro, consider a living system, a typical church for example. Most churches are very simple in structure and in action. They have a centralized authority structure, a clear chain of command, fairly clear role assignments, and a fixed set of functions. We tend to think that this simplicity of structure and function makes our churches strong and efficient. Perhaps there was truth in that at one time. But no longer. Maybe oe problem with churches today is that they are far too simple.
If authority is de-centralized, and if function is left to natural giftings and inclinations, ministry becomes much more complex and much more difficult to manage. In fact, it probably becomes unmanageable, in any centralized form. But the efficiency and effectiveness increase dramatically. Multiplication of ministry occurs. New life and new directions spring up spontaneously, like mushrooms burst to life overnight.
In her book, "A Simpler Way," Margaret Wheatley proposes these elements of logic:
We have focused too long on right answers. We have taken things apart in an attempt to build the better mousetrap. But it is all falling apart.
In reality, Margaret's conception of life is not simple. But it is incredibly freeing, not only for leaders but for every believer.
posted by Len Hjalmarson |
5:20 PM
I love getting up early. I love the quietness of the house and the singing of the birds. Someone somewhere wrote that the world bursts into song every morning. It's true.. and it's incredible.
I hate getting up early. I pay for it later in the day. I feel drowsy and have a hard time staying focused. That's the price I pay for that early morning peace.
But who cares? Why do I worry about staying focused? How do I get so driven anyway? What's the matter with crashing.. an afternoon nap?
Honestly, some days I love a nap... other days it feels like a waste of time. We westerners have a tough time with the clock.. it is always ticking, and we have to squeeze the most from every moment. What a culture. I'll bet a year or two in Mexico would cure me.
It seems I have learned to value myself for what I produce. Ech. The reality smacks me in the side of the head.. is that what I really believe? No, but too often it is how I live. It's a wonder I am capable of loving anything besides myself.
Yes.. it's a wonder.
posted by Len Hjalmarson |
4:40 PM
Tom Sine is a "futurist." But he's also a solid disciple of Jesus, committed not only to living the gospel but to living it in community.
I had a chance to chat with Tom some years back at a retreat center. I was impressed with his understanding of culture, and with his creativity in searching for more effective ways to live the gospel.
Recently I found an interview with Tom at http://www.ginkworld.net. This short section is from that interview.
Question: "What is the difference between doing discipleship on a two-legged and a three-legged stool?"
"This question shifts our attention ...to raise the bar for all generations concerning what it means to be a follower of Jesus Christ. We are not only losing our young from our churches at an alarming rate but we are also seeing a serious hemorrhaging in levels of spiritual practice... including time for prayer, scripture reading, church and witness and service. Declining per capita giving also concerns us. While per capita incomes increased 90% from 1968 to 1998 for American Christian per capita giving declined almost 20% during the same period according to the Empty Tomb. I am convinced that a major reason for these serious declines in levels of spiritual practice and Christian giving is that many of us operate from a seriously flawed notion of what constitutes a biblical view of Christian discipleship. Let me explain the problem.
"Anyone who has milked cows by hand knows that you can use a three-legged stool or even a one legged stool but a two-legged isn’t very stable. Most of the discipleship offered by the church is, I believe, based on a two-legged stool. One leg on the stool is getting our spiritual lives transformed which is essential. The second leg is getting our moral act together... also essential. But the missing leg on the stool is my belief that the scripture teaches God not only wants to transform us spiritually and morally but culturally too. I don’t believe it is possible to do biblical discipleship over the top of the individualism, materialism and consumerism of American culture and wind up with anything that looks like biblical faith. It is time we put a third leg on the discipleship stool and call all believers to whole life discipleship and stewardship that challenges modern culture instead of conforming to it.
"In other words, I believe, the established church has largely settled for a very compartmentalized faith in which we allow modern culture to define our sense of what is important and of value. For too many of us the real focus of our life has little to do with our faith and much more to do with getting ahead economically... getting ahead in our careers and in the suburbs. Too many of our churches tend to sanction this kind of compartmentalized accommodated faith and are content with discipleship on a two-legged stool. What kind of discipleship is taught in your church?"
Discipleship? It seems mostly unintentional in many churches, and cultural considerations are rare. But if it's more "caught" than "taught" it would be nice if we were catching the cure instead of the illness. We run after the same things the world runs after.
No wonder the poor remain mostly outside the walls.
Dallas Willard has done some great thinking about discipleship, in both "The Divine Conspiracy" and "The Spirit of the Disciplines." Important in all this is that effective discipleship requires real connections to others. The failure of small groups alone to make any real difference is documented in "The Connecting Church," among other places.
Tweaking the megachurch model doesn't work. Frazee makes a strong case that the mobility and privacy of "American Dream" suburbia fosters a spirit of fragmentation and isolation that is unworkable as a basis for authentic community. Frazee recommends opting out of multiple activities and superficial social circles in favor of "a circle of relationships that produces a sense of genuine belonging." Small groups emerge are a necessary but insufficient ingredient for reaching biblical community.
posted by Len Hjalmarson |
1:40 PM
This morning Brad posted this on the Postmodern mail list:
What I feel so compelled by, that seems to be missed in this thread,
is that we live in a day/period/age/generation that is witnessing the
FAILURE of MODERN EPISTEMOLOGY and being replaced with VARIOUS
PHILOSPHICAL TOOLS.
****POSTMODERNITY IS NOT A BOXED SET OF BELIEFS*****
It is simply a response to the assumptions that built modern
epistemology. We are contributing to the postmodern condition. The
foundation of postmodernity is NOT RELATIVITY! There is no foundation
for postmodernity. But, you don't need a foundation anymore!
What I keep suggesting that most miss is - this point. Postmodernity
isn't a boxed set of beliefs to be embraced or discarded. It is
simply the recgonition that we have new conditions to work in.
Now here is where it gets REALLY EXCITING TO ME!
Religious Inquiry is no longer marginalized. In modernity Scientific
Method pushed Religious Inquiry to the side and set "We have got the
floor". Philosphy discounted religious inquiry, SO, feeling
marginalized Religion got goofy and "PLAYED BY THE RULES" established
by modern philosphy.
Religion is back, off the sidelines with a VERY LARGE VOICE in the
world today. Religion has a huge opportunity to become a major
contributor to the emerging epistemology.
What I want to see happen is - Religious Leaders contributing
excellent thought to the emerging condition. To rethink our
assumptions and retool for the emerging condition.
posted by Len Hjalmarson |
1:49 PM
In the "Writings" section at the right of the main page you'll see a link to "95 Postmodern Theses." These were penned by John O'Keefe back in 1997. Check them out. I'm not sure if I agree with them all, and there is a lot of overlap, but they are thought provoking.
A few weeks ago I read something from an old newsletter by Richard Rohr:
"You can only lead people as far as you have gone, because that is the only terrain you really understand. We give people "who we are" much more than "what we do." The Latin saying had a clever ring to it, "nemo dat quod not hat."
No one can give away what they do not have!
And transformed people tend to transform other people--just by being who they are. "Radiance" rather than reward and punishment pressures. Simply put, being is ultimately more important than doing.
For me, this is incredibly hopeful, and incredibly intimidating.
It's hopeful because I worry that I don't know enough. I worry that I haven't though through the issues carefully enough. I worry that I haven't really listened adequately to those around me. But if all I have to do is "be," the pressure is off.
It's intimidating because I sometimes rely on my ability to figure it out. But if it isn't about having the right answers, if it's all about who I am.. will I be enough? Will I love enough, forgive enough, understand enough? Have I reached the place where I am dead and Jesus is free to live in me?
But in the end it really is hopeful, because He uses broken pots for His purposes. He used a man like Peter, so there is hope for me. If I can rest and abide in Him, I too can be a vehicle for His victory in the world.
posted by Len Hjalmarson |
11:10 AM
"To risk is to lose one's foothold for a while.
There is more than one kind of journey, and the unknown seems to stretch both outward and inward. When I honestly encounter myself, I usually learn something I didn't know before.
And then change in outward circumstances often demands inward adjustment, so the two connect. Moving physically, or moving socially, expands the demands on us, stretches us, demands that we face new challenges, learn new modes of being.
It's easy to become fearful. I have grown a profound hatred of fear in the last few years. I saw that much of my life had been influenced by it, and I began to seek the Lord to discover His peace at new levels.
Fear ties us in knots, and restricts inner and outer freedom. Fear distorts perception. We don't see clearly and then cannot make a clear response. Fear prevents us from hearing the Lord.
Fear binds us to the future, and prevents our embracing of the moment. It also prevents us from seeing alternatives. In a way, fear is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
No wonder that "fear not," is one of the most often repeated phrases of Jesus in the New Testament. The good news is that the Lord is never fearful, and that His Spirit brings peace.
I've often thought that peace is the opposite of fear. Probably. But I think peace is the seal on the heart of faith. No wonder that "Faith is the victory that overcomes the world."
posted by Len Hjalmarson |
11:30 AM
"Go therefore and make disciples of all nations..." Matthew 28:19
"And Abraham went out, not knowing where he was going..." Hebrews 11:8
"And if anyone knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know. But if anyone loves God, he is known by Him." 1 Cor. 8:2-3
"I am the way, the truth, and the life." Jesus
Paradox. Embracing contradiction. How can he send us, but we don't know the way? How can we know the truth, yet know nothing. How do we embrace the answers, but remain open to the questions? How do we continue to be learners?
What is the relationship of love to knowledge? In this generation, how do we talk about truth while remaining in open dialogue?
A disciple is a person on a journey, not one who has arrived somewhere. If we have arrived anywhere, the where is a "who." A disciple follows his master around and learns from him, both from his life and his words. A disciple someone who follows.
A long time ago I read Scott Peck's book, "The Road Less Travelled." I thought it quite a marvelous work, filled with insight. One of the phrases that struck me I noted in my journal...
"There are two reasons people become religious: to escape mystery, and to approach mystery."
So there are two types of people in our culture: those who are on the journey because they want to learn and grow, and those who are primarily looking for places of safety. The latter don't want change or challenge. If we are careful and caring, they will move from that great need of security into a wider and colorful land.
So the paradox of discipleship is that we have arrived at the place where we know Him, but we are still on the journey.
After all, we are saved, right? Destined for heaven; children of the king. We "Know Him whom we have believed in." What more is there?
"Make your heart attentive to wisdom,
Incline your heart to understanding;
There is a paradox in discipleship. We have "found Him" yet we grow in our journey, seeking to know Him more. We are limited human beings, and we should be committed to a life of learning and growth. The only truth about change is that it never ends.
As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are His ways higher than our ways. There is always more to know. The answers of today must fall into the ground and die and birth the questions of tomorrow, which will lead to new light and new wisdom, and new ways of being. The manna of yesterday only rots away.
Too many believers suffer from a "hardening of the categories." Too many are too secure in the knowledge of yesterday. Too many refuse to grow on with the Lord to new places. But the answers of yesterday won't make it for tomorrow. Like the manna that Israel saved, it will rot and perish; it offers no nourishment for the new generation.
In the same way that we as in individuals get stuck, the institutions we build get stuck. The church is easily mired in tradition. We like to find a formula that works and stick with it. But living things must grow and change. What is a rut? It is a grave with the ends knocked out.
So what do we need?
1. we need the ability to embrace paradox. Sometimes this is right.. and so is this.
2. we need the ability to embrace process and tentative answers. We rarely have the whole truth or the whole perspective on a truth. Light continues to break in when we are open.
3. the stance of openness is important, without it there is no dialogue and then no possibility of community.
Maybe in the end it is Christians who are best equipped to maintain this stance, since we know Him who is the Truth.. other truths may change, but the Lord does not
posted by Len Hjalmarson |
11:00 AM
Saw over at Jordoncooper.com that Michael Slaughter has released a new book, "Unlearning Church." He has done some good work in the past so this one is likely worth a look.
I also stopped by Ginkworld this morning and read john o'keefe's discussion on leader as narrator. John had previously posted some thoughts on this on the Postmodern discussion list and we had some interaction.
I like the metaphor but at the same time it bothers me. My first impression was that it smacked of a pseudo-objectivity; as if we could truly stand outside the story.
Then later I realized that in essence all the writers of Scripture make such a claim. They are both part of the story, participants and eyewitnesses of its unfolding, and "historians," claiming truth and some measure of objectivity.
Ok, I know, objectivity in the scientific sense is dead. Maybe the best statement of objectivity is simply "the word became flesh."
This morning I was reading john's comments and it struck me: the Gospel writers in particular are story tellers. They ARE narrators. So why not leader as narrator? Why not in fact a commentator, observer, listener, weaver of loose ends? Here are some of john's thoughts:
"I think primarily, you don’t lead, you example. Notice I did not say, “you lead by example” – because that is somewhat impossible, and all the time doubtful. To “example” you simply are you. Be you; be honest; be open; be transparent; be wounded; be vulnerable; be accepting; be willing to find; be willing to lose; be willing to seek answers; just be."
"One of the first things we need to do as a postmodern narrator is to let people function, and not just “give” them a function. This means you need to help people find their calling, their gifts and let them develop that call and gift to best serve God, themselves and the community."
"Postmodern leadership is truly defined in your ability to serve others in the community. If you are truly helping people to “find their function” you need to be willing to serve them, and help them, in their walk. It requires that you spend time with the people of the community, and not just a select few. People need access to you, and not to your appointment book."
"I believe that for a postmodern narrator to truly understand the community of faith they serve, they must believe in them. That means we need to invest in them; give them what we have and be willing to openly discuss issues with them. We need not preach to them, use them or require that they “take” what we desire to offer to them. One of the most important [forms of trust] is the ability to delegate authority. We [deny] the modern saying, “to be a great leader, you need to be a great follower.” This is not true, to be a great leader you need to care."
Interesting thoughts. You can find it all ginkworld
posted by Len Hjalmarson |
9:20 AM
While heading downtown in my car Wednesday afternoon I heard an interview on the CBC with author Jeremy Rifkin in Austria. He and a medical doctor/researcher have applied for a patent to the US patent office on the "Humouse," a mouse that uses human genetic material.
While that could be a surprise for some, similar genetically modified organisms have already been patented, and in the UK a patent exists for the human embryo up to the stem cell stage.
The reason that no such patent yet exists in the US, apparently, is because of a distinction between "discovery" and "invention." Life is considered a discovery, and patent applications that use the human genome still fall in that category. But researchers are arguing that special modifications of genetic material should be considered inventions. Thus the patent that exists in the UK.
The implications are stunning. The definition of "human" is at stake. Eventually a modified human with only 75% human genetics would be considered an invention.
Rifkin's goal in having a patent on the "Humouse" approved is to control future such patents for the next twenty years. This would then give him and his partner the ability to prevent the combination of human genetic material with other organisms. Rifkin is interested in stopping uncontrolled research and patents on human life. He sees the implications of commercial eugenics with human material as being very serious indeed.
Rifkin previously presented a similar case in the early 80's and lost in a Supreme Court decision 5-4. This time it should be very interesting.
I am re-reading Marshall McLuhan, "Understanding Media." It strikes me that many of the popular books of the last ten years on the Internet and the revolution in communication build heavily on McLuhan's theses. I guess it's always true that we stand on the shoulders of others. Or, as BONO put it, "It's no secret that a conscience can sometimes be a pest / It's no secret ambition bites the nails of success / Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief /
All kill their inspiration and sing about their grief" (The Fly).
What is striking to me is that "the medium is the message" is so obviously true, and yet in most modern churches we have two or three who actively lead the service, and a couple hundred (or thousand) who spectate. I know, they aren't really passive, they are singing, moving their heads, nodding off to sleep, etcetera. ;)
The point is that we can talk about a "priesthood of believers" and "every member ministry" until the moon goes blue. Our actions speak louder than our words. "The medium is the message." Only the professional, only the specially anointed, actually have space to speak. The result? A passive Christianity, a passive church, Sunday Christians, a dying culture.
I'm encouraged, however. That church is truly dying. Slowly but surely, Christians are voting with their feet. Bored, un-empowered, they are moving outside the walls and actually finding ministries. Once we all figure out that church has very little to do with Sunday gatherings, we can find other ways to gather and "do church" that will be more empowering and relevant. Gee.. that might even be fun!
There are more participatory gatherings happening all over the place. I hear about these almost weekly now. Dialogical and participatory sermons; large groups breaking into small groups; large meetings forsaken for small ones; large buildings forsaken for meeting in homes. These are signs of health and of believers walking into their birthright. Watch out! This is going to impact our culture!
Incredibly, it's post-modern types that are "saying NO" to status quo Christianity. How strange that it should take a cultural revolution to open us to our errors.
In his book "Post-Modern Pilgrims" Len Sweet uses the acronym EPIC to talk about church in post-modern culture. It must be (E)experiential, (P)participatory, (I)image-based, and C(connected). To me this is very hopeful. I believe we can make this transition and yet still remain rooted on apostolic foundations. If we can manage it, the old dinosaur will pass into history and a new church will be born.
A friend of mine is fond of calling out "Seize the Day!" to others around him. It's a good reminder that tomorrow is constantly creeping up on us.
Some time ago Leonard Sweet released a book with the title "Carpe Manana," or "Seize Tomorrow." I like that; even better than seize the day.
I like it in the first place because while we may be busy working today, and we may even be listening and talking to our culture in ways that are relevant and life giving, if we fail to think about where we are going and where our world is going, we may easily be irrelevant tomorrow. Let's face it, there are too many around us talking yesterday's language to tomorrow's people.
Another friend dropped by on the weekend and we went for a ride together to pick up his son from school. On the way I asked him why so many in evangelical churches are afraid of post-modern thought.
We wrestled with that question a while, but aside from those who fear any kind of change, we figured there was a substantial group of thoughtful people who also fear post-modern thought. Perhaps the reason is that they fear the work required to rebuild plausibility structures.
It's not hard to understand that fear. If we admit that objectivity is a myth, how do we establish the place for revealed truth? And even if we manage that feat, how do we make the claim that ultimate truth is knowable? These aren't simple tasks anymore.
But as TS Eliot said, "there is only the dance."
Michael Polanyi, the late philosopher of science, talked about "personal" truth, not in the sense of subjective, but in the sense of known and lived. If Truth is ultimately a
person, then Personal truth is really how we know him. What I have not
lived, I have not "known."
The incarnation is first a historical event, but it is also a paradigm for knowledge. Post-moderns may not easily believe our witness; but they will believe our lives. That's why the word and the Spirit must meet - so that the word is written on living hearts and not merely a dead letter. Then the incarnation becomes a new event... it's an "event" each time someone comes to know Him.
Bono of U2 has endorsed a new book titled "They've Hijacked God." The book argues that the Church is in a battle with God. "Sadly the Church is winning," says Bono. "Adam Harbinson takes on the Church as mausoleum for the 'dead' Christ and the Church as handcuffs and fire brigade for the risen Christ .... Mercifully God transcends the Church which is, I think, the subject of this book." Hijacked.
This is probably the saddest testament not only on the church, but on Christian leadership in this past century, that I can possibly imagine.
On the positive side, there are encouraging signs, and there are outstanding men and women of integrity, both inside and outside the walls.
But isn't it incredible how resistant to change we really are? Graham Cooke wrote that, "When the old wineskin is dying, the new wineskin is created by people who are not afraid to be vulnerable." Unfortunately, too many people have too much to lose.
***
I'm struck by this quote: "When a minister stands in front of people, he is interrupting what the people have come to church for. He had better have a good reason for doing that. Otherwise, he shouldn’t stand up and talk." Garrison Keillor
Some of you have probably heard of Juan Carlos Ortiz. I met him at a Mennonite missions conference back about 1988, had a chance to dialogue for about an hour. I had read his book DISCIPLE the year before.
He made some comments about "formation" vs "information" that are at the heart of the dialogue between tradition and reformation as far as I can see. Modern culture is very much into information. Even post modern culture is caught in that trap and we have information overload. Somehow we have to find forms that encourage formation. Let's face it, the sermon doesn't cut it. Most people can't remember what the preacher talked about if you ask them 24 hours later. Formation has more to do with dialogue, connection and experience.
When I was growing up, I wasn't a big or a strong kid. I was more or less
average. That meant there were a lot of kids bigger and stronger than I was.
Being a military kid, we moved every two or three years. This made it tough
to break into the "in" group, and I guess after a while I simply gave up
trying.
Military kids as a whole were a tough lot. Not being in the inner circle
made one vulnerable. I avoided fights by using my wits. I was smart, and I used
words as my weapons.
When I'm attacked or accused I react defensively. It's natural, I know. But
unfortunately (fortunately) I have an image in my mind of someone who when
He was accused didn't answer back a word.
I've wondered if it has to do with an exaggerated sense of worth. insecurity
really, the need to believe in a "perfect" self in order to feel ok.
But actually, I think it has more to do with feeling controlled, and the
fear of it. I don't respond well to control or manipulation. In fact, there
is nothing that gets under my skin more, whether for myself or others.
When I am feeling controlled, my defensiveness shows in my verbal responses
as well as my non-verbal ones. Because I am a writer, or an artist whose
medium is the word, the weapons I use in a defensive battle are words. Words
can help me regain the threatened territory. I wrestle for control with
words. And I'm fairly good with these weapons.
I worry though. While I can often win a battle of words, I'm not always
right. Even though I can appear to be right, even though my words can
justify my position or my response, I'm not always justified.
I worry also that my words can become the oppressors. I worry that in
wrestling for control I may become what I hate.
Which brings me back to Jesus: "He answered not a word."
"By your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be
condemned."
My wife and I try to walk every afternoon. I think we are hitting close to 80% these days.
This afternoon we walked beside an old orchard and talked about seeing. We all have lenses, the proverbial "colored glasses." We all see the world in unique ways.
I guess that is the ultimate subjectivity. But it's also the only way to learn and grow. So how do we benefit by our our own experience, while not being limited by our own narrow perspective?
Last fall we were invited by some neighbors to pick apples in a small field that was not going to be picked. We invited other friends, and there were about a dozen hands, all shapes and sizes, out in the field that afternoon. It was a crisp October day, with clear skies, and the smell of over ripe fruit filled the air. It was.. almost heaven.
After picking for an hour or so I wandered up the small hill nearby. From the crest I could see our own little orchard, other larger orchards nearby, and I could look down over about half of our city, across to the hills on the other side of the valley. I started thinking about perspective.
Perspective has to do partly with distance. When we are very, very close to something we have one kind of vision. When we are further away we have another kind. Generally, we need both the narrow and the wide field of vision to see things cleary. Without the wide field we don't recognize the context. With only the wide field, we don't have the up-close-and-personal to temper our vision. In a way, context and distance bring us a measure of that illusive "objectivity" that helps us remain open to other ways of seeing.
I have mixed feelings about the "blog." I feel self-conscious writing this way. It feels too narrow, too ego central, too subjective.
But at the same time, being part of a community of bloggers, maybe there is hope for perspective. Maybe it's all our eyes together that bring real sight. Maybe this is part of what Paul meant when he said that "the eye cannot say to the hand, I have no need of you." While we can't measure ultimate truth by our own experience, we can at least avoid some of the more common traps.
Picked up Leonard Sweet's "Post-Modern Pilgrims" (PMP) while visiting a friend on the weekend. I don't know.. it may have been the wine. But it just seemed to me that NextReformation was due for a .. well, "reformation." There, I said it.
Actually, the book isn't what I expected. But what can you expect from a guy with a poetic name like "Leonard?"
I confess I never did read "Soul Tsunami." I also confess to a growing suspicion of all things "postmodern." While I'm intensely interested in understanding the tidal culture around me, I am intensely allergic to trends. Ok, enough confessions.
Sweet's introduction reminded me of a dream my wife had a couple months ago. In her dream she is in our house and she "knows" that our home is between two powerful rivers. Then she sees a prophetic teacher that we know (let's call him Ted) standing with his wife and herself at the base of a tall sheer rock cliff.
Ted has two paintings hung on the rock. They are both water scenes, typical scenes, a dreamy watercolor look. Beside his paintings is hung a tall wooden door. It is an antique door and I have painted it.
Ted looks at the door (a soft green color with some other touches) and says,
"That is a beautiful work of art.. an amazing work. You could sell that for a lot of money."
Like an ancient door hung on a wall of stone.. the way forward requires an anchor in the past. Sweet talks about reaching back to move forward. The stone wall allows only one ancientfuture pathway forward.
Oh.. the wine? It was a $100 bottle of some famous Brut which had been given to my friend the day before. Most expensive stuff I've ever had. Funny .. I expected it to be dry and unpalatable. It was good. Too bad I can't afford the stuff in real life.
A friend of mine has been trying to get me to read GK Chesterton for the past year or so. You can only put off a friend for so long.. eventually they will get to you. That's why friends are so dangerous.
Not that I don't enjoy a reflective and incisive book now and then. But the stack of books calling out for attention was already beginning to create some anxiety. Ah well.
I picked up Orthodoxy a few weeks ago and began leafing through it. Then I ran into this:
I know this feeling fills our epoch, and I think it freezes our epoch. For our Titanic purposes of faith and revolution, what we need is not the cold acceptance of the world as a compromise, but some way in which we can heartily hate and heartily love it. We do not want joy and anger to neutralize each other and produce a surly contentment; we want a fiercer delight and a fiercer discontent. We have to feel the universe at once as an ogre's castle, to be stormed, and yet as our own cottage, to which we can return at evening.
No one doubts that an ordinary man can get on with this world: but we demand not strength enough to get on with it, but strength enough to get it on. Can he hate it enough to change it, and yet love it enough to think it worth changing? Can he look up at its colossal good without once feeling acquiescence? Can he look up at its colossal evil without once feeling despair? Can he, in short, be at once not only a pessimist and an optimist, but a fanatical pessimist and a fanatical optimist? Is he enough of a pagan to die for the world, and enough of a Christian to die to it? In this combination, I maintain, it is the rational optimist who fails, the irrational optimist who succeeds. He is ready to smash the whole universe for the sake of itself.
Hmm.. Good stuff. In my clear moments I recognize how little I know about love. I'd like to both love and hate the world more; I see that passion in Jesus. I tend to linger in the cynical places too long. Furthermore, I lean toward the rationalist side of experience. I have to continually ask the Lord to knock the walls from my neat boxes. I like Chesterton. Not only is he a very clear thinker, he also has a great sense of humor. Gee.. what more could I ask for?
|
 Allelon / New Phuture / Cutting Edge / Relevant Magazine / Shoot the Messenger / Vine and Branches / Jesus People USA / Sacred Future / Tribal Generation / Reality / Waves Church / Matthew's House / Sacramentis / Praxis / Post Boomer / FutureChurch / MethodX / TheOOZE / ginkworld / The Landing Place / ::seven:: / emergent village / Highway Video / emerging church / Sojourners / Ship of Fools / Beyond / Next-Wave / Small Fire / ThePowerSurge / dtour
|
• © 1999-2002 Len Hjalmarson.•
Last Updated on
