Daniel Rose: The Pastor Next Door

Any time you visit a new country there are always preconceived ideas that you have coming in. When I left for Israel I had a picture in mind of sand, mountains, and camels. Of course I also had the thought of one or two surface to air missiles and maybe a suicide bomber. I could tell that these were the same thoughts that some of my family had in mind too. I think that is part of the reason why I didn’t really get too excited about the trip, why it “slipped” my mind and why I did not talk about it much with those closest to me. My preconceived ideas had laid a foundation of fear.

Then I arrived in Israel.

I saw it.

There was no filter, there were no reporters or editors choosing what to show me.

I saw it with my own eyes.

What did I see, you ask?

I saw Tel Aviv and modern bustling city filled with people. There were kids on the beach singing and barbecuing. There were clubs thumping the bass so that you could feel it in your chest. There was graffiti. There were coffee shops and pubs. There were people jogging and riding bikes along the Mediterranean Sea. I saw a five star hotel that was had everything you could imagine.

I didn’t see a single camel. The only sand I saw was on the beach of the Med. I didn’t see a gun or a missile or suicide bomber. There were some explosions later in the weekend, but it turns out that people like to shoot off fireworks after Shabbat is over!

It’s a time to celebrate and party.

That first night in Israel I saw my preconceptions explode like an old land mine in the Golan Heights…

[podcast]https://danielmrose.com/wp-content/uploads/Grace-101031-reduced.mp3[/podcast]

[caption id=“attachment_1246” align=“alignleft” width=“300” caption=“It’s not good if the baby goes with…”]

[/caption]

For the last few years I have been on a journey. It’s a journey that has cost me friendships. It’s a journey that has caused me to look pretty deep and it has caused me to evaluate my understanding of “church”. This week I had an epiphany. It’s both/and and not either/or.

You’re thinking ,“That’s pretty cryptic.”

You’re right. Let me clarify.

The journey that I have been on has been the journey from thinking of church as primarily a “come and see” to that of “go and tell.” As per usual I have taken the pendulum of my life and swung it from one end of the spectrum to the other.

I didn’t even notice.

Passion does that.

This week I met with a group of pastors from the area for a planning time. We were meeting to plan what our churches would do together as we participate in “E.A.C.H.”, a city-wide movement of churches that are seeking to give “everyone a chance to hear” during the first forty days after Easter. We prayed and it was amazing.

Then we started talking.

Fairly quickly the debate began: proclamation OR service. The battle lines were drawn. The combatants were unwilling to budge. Then an image I used for many years with Campus Crusade for Christ (and I had used in a recent worship service) popped into my mind:

Now, what struck me was that I had forgotten something that had been drilled into me for ten years on staff with Campus Crusade for Christ. A simple truth that brought clarity to my journey:

There are three relational modes: Ministry, Body, Natural.

I want to quote Keith Davy at length here:

As God works through believers in seeking to save the lost, there are three different types of relationships, or relational modes. These modes of witness are delineated by the nature of the relationship between the believer(s) and the unbelievers. God always seeks to work through our witness as a body, through our natural relationships, and through the relationships that result from intentional ministry outreach. A ministry’s evangelistic impact is increased as it expands the influence of each relational mode. Evangelistic momentum is achieved as synergy is generated between all three modes. Understanding these modes will enable us to align our methods with God’s work more effectively and expand the impact of each mode more fully.

We must have all three. I am not suggesting that we go back to a model of church that is driven by programs and that everything is done within the four spiritual walls of the building. What I am saying is that there must be strategic placement of all three modes in the life of any congregation and in the life of the church as a whole.

It’s coming together. The journey is still long and I am sure there will be many twists and turns along the way, but this is a significant piece that has come together.

Maybe I should take another look at some of those other models that I used to make fun of? I suppose I should.

[podcast]https://danielmrose.com/wp-content/uploads/Grace-101024-reduced-64kbps.mp3[/podcast]

[podcast]https://danielmrose.com/wp-content/uploads/Grace-101017-reduced.mp3[/podcast]

“You keep saying you’ve got something for me.
something you call love, but confess.
You’ve been messin’ where you shouldn’t have been a messin’
and now someone else is gettin’ all your best.

These boots are made for walking, and that’s just what they’ll do
one of these days these boots are gonna walk all over you.”

In the 1920s the Christians walked away from education. In the 1930s and 40s we walked away from science and academia. In the 1960s we walked away from culture. In 2010 it appears we have, by and large, we are in danger walking away from our communities.

Today I spent the day at a local hospital which was hosting an international taste festival and a world impact expo. The organizer sought to provide opportunity for ten congregations or organizations from each of the world’s three dominant faiths: Christianity, Judaism, and Islam to highlight their mission efforts around the world. Only four Christian churches committed to participating. One backed out and one was a no show the day of the event.

The Jewish communities and Islamic communities had their full compliment and then some because the Christians were no shows.

The Christians were no shows.

Over the last few years I have read and heard a lot of rhetoric and polemic about Islam and its negative influence in the world. Christians have felt threatened. There has been a renewed zeal “evangelize” the “Muslim world”. There is great concern about Muslim extremists blowing things up.

But, in their own backyard the Christians were no shows.

We have to show up. When I worked with Campus Crusade for Christ we talked about how 90% of movement building was showing up.

Boots on the ground.

Being there.

I love that I am part of a church community that showed up. A movement is building. God is at work. We got to see it because we showed up.

I hope that our boots are made for walking and that we won’t walk out but we will walk in and show up.

A little over a week ago a group of high school students gathered at Grace Chapel, EPC in Farmington Hills, MI. They were there to play “A Minute to Win It”. They played a ton of different games, laughing, and trying to win, and then laughing some more. One of the volunteers in the crowd were recording the mayhem and a few of the videos were uploaded to YouTube.

Then it happened. An email from an exec at NBC requesting the videos for use on an upcoming episode of A Minute to Win It! The media is now trolling the web to find media for itself to show to us as media.

In this new world of HD cameras and YouTube one thing is now certain:

The media creators have become the media consumers.

Think about it. NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, etc…need us. They need us to keep themselves relevant, hip, and in the know. They need us to create for them. They are consuming our self-made media as much as we are consuming theirs.

Ironic.

What does it mean for a Christian to think? I don’t mean the kind of thinking where one tries to figure out a problem. I am talking about the kind of thinking where one struggles with their core beliefs and tries to determine what is real and true.

We as Christians believe that the Bible is special revelation which shows us truth and points us to what is real. We believe that it is authoritative, that means we believe that we have a book that gives us real answers by which we ought to live.

I believe that this is true.

I repeat: I believe that this is true.

However we must not take our faith and use it as a replacement for critical thought. The Apostle Paul commended the Berean believers because they searched the Scriptures for truth. If we are going to be like them then we must take our cues from them.

I am coming to the thought that for the follower of Jesus to be a real and true thinker then he or she must truly believe that the Scriptures really do have authority. But that is not all. The belief must also extend to the necessity of a diligent study of the Scriptures. We must allow them to change our presuppositions and allow them to change what we believe about the core of our worldviews.

This is what happened with the Bereans. They were a community that believed one way about God until they took a fresh look at their authoritative text and allowed it to change them and change the core foundations of their entire worldview.

So, will we think? It takes work. It takes effort. It takes a willingness to hear the authoritative texts of our community, which are the very words of God, himself.

Rick Devos asked a simple question during his presentation at TEDxDetroit: When you plan an event are you thinking about activity or experience? This is a profound question. One that I think those of who are in the church need to think deeply about. We must ask ourselves what we are calling one another too.

I think that often times we are asking and calling people to activities.

“Come and do…”

“Bring your friend to…”

What if this became…

“Hey I am a part of…”

“Do you want to join me in…”

One set of phrases represents activities, the other an experience. Jesus is not something we do. Church is not something we do. Recently I have found myself saying, “We do church…” or “How do you do church…” These kinds of statements are meaningless. We can’t “do” church any more than I can “do” human being.

It’s interesting this kind of language is typically reserved for those who are impersonators, like this:

[youtube=[www.youtube.com/watch](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78FATeTMDaA&w=425&h=350])

Man, Hartman “does” a good Sinatra! But, he’ not the real thing. He’s an impersonator. He’s faking it. He’s doing his best but it’s not real.

I think that when we try to “do” church we are the same, simple impersonators who are doing best but not the real thing.

We need to think about the experience. How can we invite people into an experience where they come face to face with the body of Christ and its head, Jesus? This question is imperative for us to answer. Is it through fog machines and video? Is it done through a high church liturgy? Maybe on both. Maybe not on both.

It seems to me that it might be in the people. When we gather for worship are we looking at ourselves and our needs or are we looking to interact and engage with the God of the universe? Are we inviting people into his presence or to our building?

I would love to know what you think it means to think about experience versus activity in this context. Comment like crazy and let’s discuss…

The Phoenix is a mythical beast which lives and dies by burning itself into a heap of ashes. From the ashes rises the next generation Phoenix. I look around at the Detroit Metropolitan area and realize that we have become a heap of ashes. 

The fire began to blaze in 1968 with the riots. From that moment on the death spiral had begun. The fire is out. We are but a pile of ash. The question now becomes what will happen with this pile of ash? Will we be blown away by the wind never again to breathe the breath of life? Or, just maybe, will we rise like a Phoenix from the ashes?

I have hope that we will rise.

Why?

In the last 24 hours I have been a part of two significant events in our city. On Wednesday, September 29 I participated in TEDxDetroit and on Thursday, September 30 I participated in EACH. These two gatherings were very different and very much the same. Both of them are seeking to transform a city which has become an icon of failure.

TEDxDetroit is a gathering of innovators, thinkers, doers, visionaries, entrepreneurs, and catalysts. EACH is a gathering of pastors. TED is multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, multi-everything; EACH crossed racial, economic, urban, and suburban. TED made a call to the people of this city to act and do and be creative to transform this place. EACH made a call to the people of this city to act and do and be creative to transform this place.

This may be a historic time that is coming to the city of Detroit.

From both I left with the same question: Will anyone really act?

I heard fine speeches and great visions and big dreams. I prayed. I worshipped. I thought. I reflected. I was challenged.

But will I act?

Will we?

A Phoenix may rise but it will require us to act.

One of the greatest characters in film is Mini Me from the Austin Powers series. Now, granted for many of you reading this blog you are already offended just with the mere mention of that film series, sorry, but keep reading it might come full circle (maybe). Have you ever wondered how Mini Me relates to Jesus? No? Hmm…

This Sunday I was talking with a group of people about the Tabernacle. The Tabernacle is a pretty cool thing. It was a fold up Temple that the people of God were able to take with them anywhere they went. It was a kind of holy Winnebago or something. Here’s a picture compliments of the ESV Study Bible:

It was a pretty remarkable thing. It was over this tent that a pillar of cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night hovered declaring that God was present in their midst. That’s pretty remarkable! Of course, it didn’t take long before this became totally ho-hum to the people of God (don’t believe me? Check out Numbers 25). Anyway, the Tabernacle became the Temple and then something happened, Jesus of Nazareth showed up and said that he was going to replace the Temple (read John, all of it).

It gets better. Jesus, this God-man, right before he died told his followers that it would be better for them that he leaves and sends them the “Comforter”, popularly known as the Holy Spirit. Why was this better?

It’s better because now we can all be Mini Mes. That’s right. The Holy Spirit is the agent of salvation and the agent of sanctification. That’s a ten dollar sentence to say that the Holy Spirit brings you to God and changes you to be more like God. Anyone who claims to follow Jesus is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, he is at work in you. He is changing you. He is making you into a “Mini Me” of Jesus. Alan and Debra Hirsch talk about the reality that the Church is to be “Little Jesuses”.

If we are Little Jesuses then we must take seriously the call of Jesus and the inner working of the Holy Spirit. It means that we must go where Jesus goes and love what Jesus loves.

How do we know if we are taking these steps? How do we know if we are becoming like Jesus? Well Paul gives us some help in Galatians 5:

But what happens when we live God’s way? He brings gifts into our lives, much the same way that fruit appears in an orchard — things like affection for others, exuberance about life, serenity. We develop a willingness to stick with things, a sense of compassion in the heart, and a conviction that a basic holiness permeates things and people. We find ourselves involved in loyal commitments, not needing to force our way in life, able to marshal and direct our energies wisely. (Galatians 5:22–23, The Message)

So what kind of Mini Me are you?

The Lions are 0–3, the Tigers are out of the playoffs, U of M is undefeated but it looks like they probably won’t win a Big Ten game, that can only mean one thing: Hockey. That’s right we are ten days away from the start of the NHL and most importantly the Red Wings. Last season was frustrating. But, in the end it was great.

It was great because…

1. We found out that Jimmy Howard is the real deal.
2. We found out that guys like Eaves, Miller, and Abdelkader can play with the big boys.
3. We found out that Mike Babcock is a ridiculously good coach.
4. We found out that the Swedes have heart.
5. We found out that the leadership on this team will take them a long way.
6. Hudler found out that he needed the Red Wings.
7. Mike Modano didn’t win a Cup and will go for one here in Detroit.
8. The Blackhawks won their championship and a real original six rivalry was reborn.
9. The Penguins didn’t win the championship.
10. It made us as fans thankful for the nearly 20 years of amazing hockey we have seen in the D.

The boys from Grand Rapids grew into men last year. The Wings have FIVE NHL caliber offensive lines. They are deep. They are hungry. They are fast.

The big questions I have:

1. Can Franzen stay healthy?
2. Will Kronwall become the defenseman everyone else know he can become?
3. Will Datsyuk and Zetterberg each score 30+ goals?
4. Will Modano set up the Happy Hudler for 20+ goals?

If these things happen then there will be a parade in the D and it will be Mayor Bing’s turn to buy the Vernors and Coneys!

Pew Research posted a recent study looking at how people’s religion effects their understanding of various social issues. What I found interesting is that on many issues even though people hear their pastor speak on issues it does not effect the way they think about them.

I think this study highlights a significant shift within the religious community. This shift points to the reality that people are looking elsewhere for wisdom. This is especially highlighted in issues where television political pundits have the loudest voices. The leaders of religious communities cannot compete with the 24 hour news cycle and the reruns of hour long editorial commentary that is played off as “fact”.

Continually, pastor friends of mine, are finding that people hear what they want. They don’t take into account the full picture. The Bible or the pastor are minor voices in a large conversation. I think that in many ways we could say that our politics are shaping our theology.

When this happens the faith community necessarily finds itself on shaky ground. The kingdom of God is a subversive kingdom which requires a radical reorientation of one’s view of the world. If the faith community is being transformed primarily through outside forces then it ceases to be the subversive community of Jesus but something else.

As I read this text, I am writing and responding. You are getting my fresh thoughts, ones which are rather raw. So, hopefully, this means that we will end up in conversation where we can interact over them and flesh it out a bit. Up to this point I have been wrestling with how Wright was going to answer the Authority question.

He does so by arguing for the necessity of theology in understanding the New Testament (and really any historical work) due to theology’s central role in world view. This then leads him into the question of authority which he answers this way:

“I am proposing a notion of ‘authority’…vested…in the creator god himself, and this god’s story with the world, seen as focused on the story of Israel and thence on the story of Jesus, as told and retold in the Old and New Testaments, and as still requiring completion. (143)”

Now that is a statement. I am not sure if I am yet fully grasping the huge paradigmatic shift that Wright is arguing for here. Typically authority is based on the ontological reality that the bible contains the words of God and therefore is authoritative. However, because Wright is not starting with the assumption that the Christian ‘god’ is THE ‘god’ (it is this fact that Wright is seeking to prove) so he cannot begin with an ontological basis for authority. He must get there in another way. This he does by arguing that the story being told is authoritative because of the fact that it is indeed TOLD!

This seems to me to be a very interesting approach as it opens the door to conversation with those for whom the idea of a ‘god’ is ridiculous and certainly an authoritative text about this ‘god’ is even more silly. However, if we begin with the reality that worldviews actually connect to reality and that the story held within the confines of the Old and New Testaments actually seeks to relate reality then we can engage on issues of veracity, or as Wright puts it, validation.

To be sure this feels like a leap to me. However, I wonder is this really a semantic game? What I mean is this: Is there actually any difference in Wright’s formulation of authority versus that of, say, the Westminster Confession? What say you?

As I continue to work through The New Testament and the People of God by N.T. Wright, I was struck by this statement: “history…is rather the meaningful narrative of events and intentions.(82)” Wright is arguing that history is not simply the subjective interpretation of events and ideas. It is however, connected to a reality outside itself and is a process by which those events are placed within a grander meta-narrative. He argues against the postmodern emphasis and focus on the centrality of the reader that disconnects texts from their historical setting.

This I think is very helpful. Primarily because he draws out the fundamental flaw in our current cultural milieu. Which is this disconnect from the fact that things do actually happen apart from someone writing them down.

The other thing that I think is key in his definition is that it points to “intentions”. The intention of an author is something that many in our world today argue against being a possible end. However, it seems that Wright wants to argue that we have access to intent. If this is the case then we can begin to grapple with the statements of the text that seek to subvert us.

In my previous post I asked the question, “where do we find authority?” I think that if we can find intent then we can have grounds for building authority. Apart from this, it will be difficult to do so.

So, do you think we have access to intent? Or is all this a bunch of hot air?

Yesterday I committed myself to watching The NINES leadership conference. I set up the laptop with the projector and big screen and kicked back in our youth room. I was impressed with the variety of speakers and the depth of insight that was being presented. I was less than surprised by some of the poor exegesis. I was able to invest in about half the conference.

For those of you who don’t know how the The NINES works it’s a single day web conference where speakers discuss a single topic. This year they got 6 minutes. So, over the course of the nine hours there were over 100 videos. The pace is fast and a couple fo hours disappear before you know it. This year’s topic was “Game Changers”.

There were two highlights for me as a developing leader that I am going to continue chewing on. The first was from Mike Slaughter. He discussed the centrality of discipleship in his ministry. What really caught me was when he said, “Programs and services do not produce disciples, disciples do.” Now, this is not new information. But, it was one of those reminders that as a pastor/shepherd my calling is to disciple making. It is not to entertaining or building a social club. The ramifications of this are still swirling in my head.

The second talk that has stuck was from Eric Geiger. He discussed the role of the pastor. He argued that the typical church structure is:

[Pastor] — ->Minister — –>[People]

He then turned to Ephesians 4:11–12 and made the case that the biblical model is:

[Pastor] — –>Prepare — –[People] — –>Minister

This ties directly into the discipleship issue. While I was on staff with Campus Crusade for Christ I think I was a pretty effective discipler. The movements that I served developed high student ownership and our staff teams were diligent about preparing people to do ministry. There was a clear DNA that we sought to replicate within each student. I think that this has been the hardest part of the transition into the local church. Our DNA is not as clear, the folks who have been entrusted to us are not as available, the expectations on the role of pastor is very different because the people have expectations!

This morning as I process I am wondering how do we effectively disciple in the modern world?

My good friend Damon Reiss and I will be spending some time reading and writing together on the issues raised in N.T. Wright’s New Testament and the People of God. This text is the first in a five part series that Wright is doing on “Christian Origins and the Question of God”. Wright is understood to be the leading spokesman for the “New Perspective on Paul” and is embraced by many in the “emerging church” as their key theologian (oddly enough he does not really fit there). He has recently stepped out of pastoral ministry to engage full-time in the academy.

I think my hope for these series of posts is to:

1. Stimulate our own thinking about root theological issues.
2. To encourage one another.
3. To challenge you, the reader, to grab a text, follow along, and engage in the conversation.

The majority of the opening sections are filled with methodology. For some this is dense and feels somewhat pointless. However, let me suggest a couple of thoughts as to the inherent goodness of clearly stating one’s method:

1. It provides a common language and framework to evaluate for intellectual integrity.
2. It provides a look into the assumptions of the work and allows for dialogue at the root level of one’s argument.

The key to understanding Wright’s method is to understand the problem that he finds all of us bumping into in our post-modern world, he writes, “We must try to combine the pre-modern emphasis on the text as in some sense authoritative, the modern emphasis on the text (and Christianity itself) as irreducibly integrated into history, and irreducibly involved with theology, and the post-modern emphasis on the reading of the text. (27)”

This first volume, Wright insists, “argues for a particular way of doing history, theology, and literary study in relation to the questions of the first century; it argues for a particular way of understanding first-century Judaism and first-century Christianity; and it offers a preliminary discussion of the meaning of the word ‘god’ within the thought-forms of these groups, and the ways in which such historical and theological study might be of relevance to the modern world.(28)”

The approach that Wright argues for is what he terms “critical realism”. This approach is contrasted to the positivist and the phenomenalist.

Positivist: simply looks at the objective reality, tests it, if it doesn’t work its nonsense.

[caption id=“attachment_1067” align=“aligncenter” width=“300” caption=“Wright, 35”]

[/caption]

Phenomenalist: I seem to have evidence of an external reality, but I am really only sure of my sense-data.

[caption id=“attachment_1068” align=“aligncenter” width=“300” caption=“Wright, 36”]

[/caption]

Critical Realist: initial observation, challenged by critical reflection, but can survive the challenge and speak truly of reality.

[caption id=“attachment_1069” align=“aligncenter” width=“300” caption=“Wright, 36”]

[/caption]

Wright’s “critical realism” seeks to survive challenges through what he terms as “verification”. This method has some similarity to the “scientific method” of hypothesis, test, evaluate, etc…However, the difference being that it is tested within the context of worldview. The assumption is that each person has a worldview and seeks to make information “fit” into that worldview. As Wright says, “…there is no such thing as the detached observer. (36)” Therefore, knowledge and understanding comes through the process of “question, hypothesis, test hypothesis” in the context of story-telling which is the fundamental means by which humanity shares information.

[caption id=“attachment_1070” align=“aligncenter” width=“300” caption=“Wright, 44”]

[/caption]

I think that Wright’s approach is very helpful. There are two reasons I find this helpful:

1. It provides for authorial intent because it forces us to take seriously the story/narrative of the original context.
2. It provides for contemporary reading because we are forced to take our own context seriously.

The question that remains for me though is this: what determines the authority by which we modify our stories? What do you think? How and where do we give authority to change the stories? What is the basis of authority? Is it possible to find authority outside ourselves and if so on what basis do we argue for that?

Dear Dan,

In a recent edition of the Boston Globe you had this to say about Detroit:

Think about it: For the next five weeks, you could live in downtown Boston and your wife could shop on Newbury Street. Or you could live in downtown Detroit, amid the boarded-up buildings and the proverbial skeleton frames of burned-out Chevrolets. Is this really a tough call?

I would like to commend you on your lack of research. You seem to be looking at pictures from 1968 in the immediate after math of the riots. Do you still think there is a gunman on the campus of Kent State University? Or maybe you believe that the “British are Coming”?

Of course maybe you are upset that President John F. Kennedy had this to say about Detroit:

[youtube=[www.youtube.com/watch](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Di6YmCLZgc&w=425&h=350])

I don’t know what your issue is. I don’t really know why you feel like you have to chastise a proud city. I would invite you to come and see what Detroit is all about. Oddly enough I have not seen a burned out Chevrolet anywhere. From Midtown to Greektown to Downtown all I find are great restaurants, bars, world class hospitals, a world class university, and three great sports franchises.

When one determines to include the metropolitan area we find that on a weekend in the fall 110,000 people jam into U of M staduim, 70,000 at MSU, 20,000 for a Wings game, 20,000 for a Pistons game, 35,000 for a Tigers game, and 60,000 for Lions game.

Detroit is proud city with good people. We are a collection of urban and suburban working together for a great future. I suggest, sir, that you come visit before you write about our home again.

Sincerely,

Me.

PS — Thanks to Dave Mieksztyn for the following links that you might find interesting:









http://500coolthings.com/ (from the boys at Professional One)

[caption id=“attachment_1048” align=“alignleft” width=“239” caption=“Hilarious!”]

[/caption]

…where atleast I know I can buy, whatever I want, when I want it, and nobody can stop me.

There are few lasting images in my mind like that of September 11, 2001 and the days that followed. I remember where I was when I found out the World Trade Center had been attacked. I remember sitting and praying with a team of missionaries in my home for the families, the world, and our country. I remember looking at my son who was a few months old thinking what was his life going to be like?

Then it happened, the President of the United States finally spoke. He told us that the terrorists would not win. He told us that we can stand up to these people and fight! He told us to do that we must…we must…GO SHOPPING! Fill the malls and buy stuff, show them that they can’t take away your lives!

In that moment, I thought, “Yes! That’s right we must go on.” Upon nearly a decade of reflection I am becoming more and more distressed by this statement. What distresses me is the fact that it is emblematic of the broken culture within which we live in the West. We are fundamentally consumers. To go shopping and buy whatever we want is our highest freedom. It is what drives us.

Missional discipleship necessarily conflicts with this. Consider this passage from Jesus’ teaching,

“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
“Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
“Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
“Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.
“Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.
“Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
“Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
“Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account.”
(Matthew 5:3–11 ESV)

This is not the teaching of a consumerist. This is the teaching of a man who would end up being crucified in any era, any time, and any place. Missional discipleship requires us to take a hard look at the culture around us and begin to understand how WE are being manipulated by a broken world.

So many who call themselves “Christian” are more interested in the spiritual wares that a church is offering than serving in the church. “Churches” become a clearing house for a shallow spirituality that is designed to attract and lure as opposed to forming the followers of Jesus spiritually. They become analogous to the the fishing lure. It is pretty and attractive and the fish can’t help but take a bite in doing so it finds itself hooked without substance.

Eugene Peterson in “Tell it Slant” says that this approach is similar to narcotics. You can not live on narcotics yet it is all you want.

“If Christianity simply mirrors its culture, what is the point of its mission? (Untamed, 109)”

If we are serious about discipleship we must set aside the trappings of the consumerism that surrounds us and embrace the covenantal communitas of the living God.

Are you a consumer or a member of community?

Is it all about you or another?

Are you asking “what’s in it for me” or “what can I offer”?

In my experience the evangelical church has a bit of an integrity problem. No, I am not talking about the issues that just popped in your head. I am talking about the Holy Spirit. The last time I checked he was still part of the Godhead, you know the Triune God we Christians believe in? Yeah that guy. Our creeds give him second billing. In seminary our professors tack him on at the end of a course and seemingly never get to him. Yet, it is because of him that Jesus said it was better for us that he return to heaven and be with the Father.

It is to the person of the Holy Spirit that we now turn in our quest for missional discipleship as outlined for us in “Untamed” by Alan and Debra Hirsch.

The Hirsch’s spend much time discussing the abuses and problems surrounding our understanding of the Spirit and for that discussion I encourage you to read the book. I want us to focus on the heart of the issue in the chapter which is the carrying out of holiness with the Holy Spirit.

First, there is a comment made that I think is worth repeating. Holiness is not a list of “don’ts” but of “dos”. This is imperative for us in discipleship. The Holy Spirit is not a cosmic kill joy but one who spurs us to creativity, joy, passion, and mission. He also leads us into truth and reminds us of all that Jesus taught.

How does this translate into missional discipleship? Check it out…

Let there be creativity: The Holy Spirit is the Creator, and he lives in us. The on who created the platypus can surely stir our hearts and minds to creative action.

Let there be risky mission: The Hirsch’s remind us that God is a sending God. He sent the Son and the Spirit. He has also sent the church. The Spirit of God is leading us on the Mission of God. Will we boldly and faithfully follow?

Let there be communitas: Community without mission is a social gathering. Communitas is developed around a mission. Is your community on mission? If not, then you don’t have communitas and you might be missing out on what the Holy Spirit is doing in your midst.

Let there be lots of little Jesuses: The process of discipleship is to become like our rabbi, Jesus. If we are not looking more and more like him and there are not lots of “little Jesuses” running around then we are missing the work of the Spirit in our lives.

Let there be love: Romans 5:5, “God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.” To love well means that we are in step with the Spirit.

Let there be learning community: The Spirit of God leads us into all truth. We can pursue a quest for knowledge and knowing and ought to because of our relationship with the Spirit.

Let there be some miracles: Embrace the miracles of God that happen and let it be OK to do so. We can set aside our enlightenment rationalism and rejoice in the working of God.

Let there be spiritual maturity: The Spirit is the means of spiritual growth, he brings us toward spiritual maturity, as we keep in step with him, we will see this growth.

Let there be a lot more discernment: To engage in the mission of God requires us to be in step with the Spirit so that we can discern between Spirit-led engagement and foolish absorption into the world.

Let there be unity around Jesus: I think this makes sense on its own.

Let there be ecstasy and intimacy: I have been reading some in the life of Abraham Lincoln and his counterparts. I am noticing that there is a great sweep of emotion and intimacy in their writings. This is largely lacking from our communities today. If we are in step with the Spirit then we will begin to experience this more and more.

Let there be liberation and transformation: As we engage more fully with the Spirit we will experience his transforming power in our lives and in the lives around us. This will be demonstrated through our being freed from the sin that entangles.

So, which of these do you question? Doubt? Struggle with?

“If God is not the defining center of our faith, life, and identity, then who or what is? (58)” Now there is a question. The Hirsch’s continue to challenge our thinking in relation to the center of our faith in chapter 2 of “Untamed”. There is nothing more central to who we are than what we worship.

Missional Discipleship, at its core, is about worship.

Worship at its core is about the person or object worshiped.

If we get this wrong then we get it all wrong. The Crusader, the jihadist, the cult leader all do evil because their worship is wrongly placed.

So, how do we know if we are worshiping rightly? The answer, Israel’s Shema:

““Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.”
(Deuteronomy 6:4–5 ESV)

This is the compass by which we set our heading in discipleship because it points us towards the reality and truth of who God is and what God has called us to do. Jesus said it this way,

“Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.””
(Mark 12:29–31 ESV)

Notice his expansion to love your neighbor. If you love God, then you will love your neighbor. It is a simple cause and effect relationship. If you do not love your neighbor, then you do not love God. I think that this modern re-telling of the “Good Samaritan” proves helpful here.

The Hirsch’s argue that this place of “biblical knowing” comes when right thinking, right acting, and right feeling intersect. The process of getting us to this point is the task of discipleship.

The issue at stake here remember is worship. The Hirsch’s define it this way, “offering our whole world back to God. (76)” If our lives are not becoming to a greater degree more and more unified under the living God then we are not worshiping.

My challenge for each of us is to take stock here. Where are you disunified under God in your life? In what ways are you creating God in your image? Where are you missing in the areas of right acting, right thinking, and right feeling?

I would love to hear your thoughts in the comments…

Last week I spent some time reading Alan and Debra Hirsch’s newest offering, Untamed. It was so worthwhile that I thought I would take a few days to post a summary of each chapter. While there is nothing necessarily “new” in the book it is a really well done text that brings classic missional discipleship into an updated and fresh rendering.

We begin with our view of Jesus. The argument that is posited is simple, “Show us your Jesus and we will show you who you are (38).” This is key to our understanding who God is. This is why the Hirsches argue that the foundation of discipleship is Jesus. To know God is to know Jesus. In any way that our picture of Jesus fails so too does our image of God.

I think that Alan and Deb illustrate this well by asking this simple and yet profound question, “If we had a properly Jewish picture of Jesus would the holocaust have happened? (39)”

Let that question run around in your mind a moment. Is it possible that had the world rightly pictured Jesus as a Jew and not as a European could it be that the holocaust could have been avoided?

We must ask this question, do we believe in the Jesus of the Bible or do we believe in a created Jebus of our own imagination?

This is critical for the task of discipleship because it is Jesus who sets the entire spiritual agenda for his follower. Before continuing in your read, I would encourage to take a moment and consider, who is your Jesus?

Now we must determine what our agenda for discipleship is. Quite simply it is the pursuit of holiness. This pursuit of holiness is different from what we typically understand. Consider the fact that when Jesus was teaching there was a group of very holy people, the Pharisees. They had cornered the market on holiness, they had all the rules and all the ways to make sure you could stay close God. However, the people feared them and their religion.

Then this Jesus comes around and his brand of holiness is attracted people, and not just average people, but SINNERS. Yes, his holiness attracted SINNERS, the very people who the Pharisees, those hard hearted harbingers of holiness, despised and avoided. This holy Jesus was accused of being a drunk and a glutton. His brand of holiness is clearly stated in Matthew 5–7, that great sermon on the mount.

Do you hold to the radical and untamed holiness that Jesus espouses in the sermon?

What is astounding is that this holiness is based within the context of love, grace, and mercy and yet a radical standard that transcends anything that most of us would consider doable.

The first task of missional discipleship: right our view of Jesus.

The second task of mission discipleship: embrace the sermon on the mount as our agenda.

[vimeo 6302404]

I am really enjoying the ideas that are being put forth as part of the Big Tent synchroblog. I think that one of the things I am noticing is that there continues to be one thing lacking in all of our posts, a center. It seems that each of us would say “Jesus” is the center. But, which Jesus? Alan and Deb Hirsch in their text Untamed do a great job of pointing out that our understanding of who Jesus is determines what we believe about God. It is here that I think we find either our center or the point at which the Big Tent falls.

For us to truly be a Big Tent we must find the good and the redemptive in each of the positions that are being voiced. There are too many voices that make it feel as though to enter the tent you must set aside your tradition and set aside your understanding of the faith. Yet, this not the way that the first Big Tent worked itself out. We must realize that we are blazing new ground. We are simply rehashing the same issues that have faced the church since the beginning: What do we make of the stranger? For the first century church this had everything to do with what to do with the Gentile convert.

The answer was: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28 ESV)“ Paul was simply admonished to “remember the poor”, which was the very thing he sought to do. The table was opened. There was freedom to approach God as male and female, Jew and Gentile, and so forth. Today we are still free to approach our God as fundamentalist, neo-reformed, reformed, orthodox, liberal, neo-liberal, emergent, etc… The question is will we embrace a consistent picture of Jesus?

I would suggest that this is the pen-ultimate question. Who is Jesus? Can we agree on an answer? Is it possible to listen to one another’s perspectives and find the baby in the bath water in each?

I appreciate the motto of the tradition that I belong to, “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity.”

Of course this requires a definition of what is essential. The bigger the tent the larger the stakes required to secure that tent and keep it up. Here’s my minimal effort at a “Big Tent” list of essentials:

1. Jesus is the real representation of God and in him alone we find the clearest expression of who God is.
2. The atonement in all its facets is central to our understanding of identity and mission for the follower of Jesus.
3. The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the essential grounds for our knowledge of Jesus and his way.
4. The mission of the Church is to follow Jesus as king in his kingdom building movement in all of its ramifications.

Personally, I ascribe to the Westminster Confession with a couple of exceptions. I also prefer the slightly more robust essentials statement of the EPC. However, I think those four statements might allow for a symphony of harmonious voices to engage together.

What say you? What are the essentials for a Big Tent Christianity?

This my third post for the Big Tent Synchroblog dealing with these questions: What are your hopes and dreams for the Church? More specifically, what does “big tent Christianity” mean to you? And what does it look like in your context?

I want to deal with the first question: What are your hopes and dreams for the Church? In my first post I dealt with a definition of the church ( group of people who communing together in the midst of being on mission with Jesus). So, here’s how I see that playing out in my hopes and dreams.

I dream about a church that is scattered all over a city, town, or suburb in small, intimate groups that are keenly aware of the needs, heart cry, and passion of their surroundings. These small gatherings would each have an embedded DNA of mission, compassion, and kingdom. These gatherings would be outward looking always seeking to broaden their definition of family by inviting the stranger into their midst. They would gather around a common table fellowshipping together and worshiping through prayer and the word.

These who are scattered would come together each week and celebrate all that God is doing in their midst. Stories would be shared and the DNA of mission and kingdom reinforced through the preaching of the authoritative Scriptures. The church would be diverse in as much as the communities which are represented in it are diverse.

I dream about there being a revolutionary effect because the mission grows the kingdom and the pursuit of the King is relentless. Care and concern for the local would drive a vision for the global. The creation would be cared for through a reconnection to local food sources that would require the local culture to be sustainable for its own sake.

The Church would grow in scope as it scatters further and further birthing new celebratory gatherings and so on and so on. The very nature of DNA requires multiplication and diversity. When it becomes static and loses its diversity then mutations and problems occur.

For the church to be the beautiful bride of Christ it necessarily must be scattered, gathered, and multiplying.

As I mentioned in my previous post, I am on a study leave this week and a big part of that is preparing for the year that is to come. I am enjoying the time to think and plan. The Big Tent Synchroblog has been stimulating some of my thinking and has been a welcome distraction to punctuate my work chunks.

My initial response to the blogs is that there seems to be a couple of main issues surfacing in the conversation. What are these issues you ask? It’s the issue of human sexuality. Chad Holtz, and Rachel Held Evans are good examples.The other issue is that of what do we do with those who disagree with us. David Adams, Greg Bolt, Julie Clawson are good representatives of this side of the coin.

As I think about these two sides of the same coin I begin to wonder if we are missing the key issues that are potentially at stake in this conversation. While we talk about enlarging our tent, I think we are missing the key issue, as Scott Frederickson helpfully points out, taking our tables out of the tent.

I am growing more and more convinced that as we authentically engage in the lives of people we will change our understanding of the way we understand “who” can belong. People with real relationships with the homeless easily include them in the community. People with real relationships with homosexuals easily include them in the community. People with real relationships with heterosexually broken people easily include them in the community. The list could go on…

The issue that continues to rise to the forefront of my mind is this: Who we know determines who we love. The unknown creates fear. To broaden the “tent” we must broaden our relationships. As we broaden our relationships we will constantly have to return to the question of grace and what it means to embrace those who “live in a broken world with broken relationships and bad records”.

Check out the blogs and let me know what you think…

I hope that as the week continues we will see conversations move from our personal “hot button issues” to grand visions of a unified body of Jesus.