I have been reading Brian McLaren’s newest book, A New Kind of Christianity. It has totally engaged me. My mind is wrestling through the challenges that he has laid out. I am about half way through the text and I am very frustrated that he end-noted instead of foot-noted, I have a callous now from marking my place at the end-notes (OK not really, but you get my point). I am going to write ten more posts on the book and in each one I am going to interact with the question that McLaren proposes.

Here’s your chance to look into the future:

• What is the overarching story line of the Bible?
• How should the Bible be understood?
• Is God violent?
• Who is Jesus and why is he important?
• What is the gospel?
• What do we do about the church?
• Can we find a way to address human sexuality without fighting about it?
• Can we find a better way of viewing the future?
• How should the followers of Jesus relate to people of other religions?
• How can we translate our quest into action?

These will be my next ten posts. I hope that you will interact in the comments and that we can have a good and lively conversation about what McLaren is bringing to the table.

Holograph (left), Tony Morgan (right)

Is the title a little extreme? Probably. But, that’s the point. Yesterday Tony Morgan sported some new technology on his website. It’s the same kind of technology that we saw on CNN during the presidential coverage, that’s right, holograms. Tony believes that this technology will be coming down in price such that it will become a regular in churches in the next year.

I think that this is a sad commentary on the state of discipleship in the church today. We already have pastors of “multi-site” churches preaching via video screen because they are unwilling or incapable of training others up. This takes it to the next level. I can see the sales pitch coming now, “Imagine having Rob Bell or John Piper preaching at your church EVERY Sunday for the low, low price of…”

I am an early adopter of technology. I am also a believer in the necessary availability of the preacher to connect with his people. One of my mentors said, “The most important part of the sermon is the slow walk after the service out of the sanctuary.” Why? It is because in those few moments you are able to engage with the people God has entrusted you with. You are able to field questions, talk more deeply, or just hear an encouraging word. Let’s see a holograph do that!

It seems to me with this technology, as with many others, the question is not “can we” but “should we.” What say you? Should you replace your preached with a holograph?

When I opened up my RSS reader yesterday and saw Out of Ur’s article on Pastor Mark Driscoll’s comments on Avatar, I was intrigued. I clicked. I watched. I was amazed. I was sitting with my wife and my jaw dropped and she began wondering if I had lock jaw on the off chance that I did not get my tetanus updates. The reality is that I was surprised by comments like this coming from a person who holds tightly to a Reformed perspective of doctrine (which I am coming to learn does not equate to a Reformed worldview, I am so naïve!)

First, let me say a few things to set the stage for my concerns.

1. I enjoy Pastor Mark and am thankful for the role he plays in the Christian world.
2. I agree with Pastor Mark’s assessment that Na’avi of Avatar practice pantheism.
3. I agree with Pastor Mark’s assessment that pantheism is an incorrect worldview.
4. I agree with Pastor Mark that the film is promoting a worldview that does not jive with the Biblical worldview.
5. I agree with Pastor Mark that the film does not portray an exact representation of Jesus.
6. My guess is that Pastor Mark went down a rabbit trail in his sermon on this one and did not think it through.

I want to make it clear: I agree with much of what Pastor Mark says in the clip.

However, I do struggle with some of Pastor Mark’s comments. I will briefly outline them here. First, I struggle with the way that Pastor Mark has chosen to set Christ against culture, the Reformed position is Christ transforms culture. I think that he has made an inappropriate good/bad split. Avatar in his mind is “all bad”. I am not sure that this is true. There are some helpful metaphors in the film. One example is the character of Grace Augustine. She promotes a gracious approach to the “fearsome” Na’avi as opposed to a law driven approach. This seems awfully familiar to the grace that Augustine espoused. Coincidence? Maybe. A second example is one of the things that Pastor Mark argues against as a “false incarnation”. I thought the film did a nice job representing the incarnation. Here we have an incarnated being learning and becoming part of a culture and community that is not his own after leaving the relative ease of his previous life. Is it perfect or ideal? No. It is not written from a Biblical worldview. Is it a bridge to the subversive and radical life of Jesus? Yes.

I also struggle with the way that Pastor Mark portrays Genesis 1:27–28. He says that the Biblical teaching is “progress” and that we are not to remain “primitive”. The problem is that this is not nuanced enough. The Biblical mandate requires us to steward, tend , and care for the creation of the Creator. This means that we are not to support strip mining, clear cutting, and the destruction of the creation. We are to care for it and tend it. Are we to create culture and progress? Yes. However, we are to do so in such a way that honors God’s creation which he deemed good as opposed to seeing the creation as a hindrance or an inconvenience to our way of life.

Jumping off this point, is another one. Pastor Mark says that humanity does not have the “divine spark”. That’s simply not true. We are created in the image of God. All of us are image bearers. We are radically and completely corrupted by sin from the start. None of us are innocent. None of us are able to save ourselves. We need our sovereign God to graciously redeem us according to his plan. Yet every person in Hell is still a human created in the image of God.

At the beginning of the clip Pastor Mark is talking about consumerism and the world system. The funny thing is that Avatar agrees with him. Consumerism is the driving force behind the humans destroying the Na’avi. The consumerism drives them to destroy the creation and the culture of these beings. I am concerned that Pastor Mark is burning bridges to the gospel as opposed to building them.

Another struggle I have with Pastor Mark’s assessment is that he seems to be communicating from his politics as opposed to the Bible. The charges that he levies against Avatar could be very easily levied against The Chronicles of Narnia or The Lord of the Rings. But, we “know” that these author’s were Christians and so we are OK with their metaphors. I mean seriously, Jesus is represented by a lion who lives out a false resurrection and a false incarnation. Narnia has witches and talking beasts. But, we all know that these are metaphors, illustrations of something else. Can we not build a bridge from the metaphors present in Avatar? I think we can and I think we should.

Avatar is not the most demonic movie ever (I would say the Exorcist is). It is an opportunity for the Christian world to speak to a world that desperately needs Jesus with metaphors and images that will make sense to them.

Have you ever felt as though what you say does not matter? I have this experience often. Many nights I come home and flop on the couch and wonder why I ever speak. It is as if nobody is listening. Then I read The Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell and the “Law of Stickiness”that he has identified. Gladwell shares the story of Sesame Street and Blue’s Clues and how both shows were developed in such a way that their messages would stick. I think that this might be my problem. I do not often think about how to make my message sticky.

Gladwell’s “Law of the Few” says you need the right people. The “Law of Stickiness” says you need the right message. Gladwell reasonably states that if Paul Revere were telling people about a sale at his silver shop the Massachusetts countryside would not have been mobilized, there was something sticky about “THE REDCOATS ARE COMING!”

I think that this is critical for the church today. We lament that people are leaving the church. We lament the shrinking number of people trusting Christ. We decry the youth for checking out by the time they hit Middle School. Our researchers point to all kinds of reasons for these realities from the postmodern shift to divorce rates. It is not very often that we evaluate our message.

Somehow we have turned the stickiest message in history into a sheet of ice.

The gospel is sticky. The Apostle Paul puts it this way, “Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. (1 Cor 1:22–24)” The message that has been entrusted to us is one that causes a reaction, a response. Unfortunately we have lost our communicative creativity and it has lost its stick.

The question we must ask ourselves as followers of Jesus is how do we get our “sticky” back? I think that we get our sticky back the same way that Jesus and Paul did. They spoke the language of the people. Jesus told short stories that got inside people’s heads. Paul understood the people he spoke to and bridged the gospel to their contexts. They used the right words.

What are the right words for us today? What is the language that the 21st century citizen of the United States speaks? I think that those around me speak in the language fo guilt ridden narcissism. The metaphors exist in film and popular music. This is the context we are speaking into.

In the midst of this how do we make our message stick? I think that the message will stick if we can become creative in our communication to create parables based in the metaphors of this generation’s context. We must not give over the metaphors and continue to speak a slippery message.

Jesus message is subversive. It cuts to the quick. It is by nature sticky. We have tamed it, we have set aside our imaginations, and as a result we have made it slick. I pray for a return to creativity, a return to cultural engagement, and a return to subversive preaching of the sticky gospel.

I have recently finished reading Malcolm Gladwell’s The Tipping Point. I was very impressed with the book and it has given me much to think about. Gladwell discusses epidemics and relates epidemiology to social movements. I am going to post a few of my reflections and I how think the ideas in the text relate to the local church because as we consider how to transform the world around us we need to be aware of these truths.

The first concept is “The Law of the Few” (30–88). The Law of the Few simply means that it does not take a large number of people to tip an epidemic. What you need to create a radical transformation is the right person. There are three kinds of people that can create a tipping point (in church language: the moment a ministry becomes a movement). The first kind of person is a “Connector”. A Connector is someone who moves in and out of many different social groups. Not only this they are able to connect the people in those groups to one another. There was a student at Illinois State University named Brad who was in my Bible study for a couple of years. Brad knew everyone. He did not just know names but he knew something about everybody. Almost every week Brad would talk about entering into a new realm of friends. It was incredible!

When a Connector catches a passion for something she is able to spread it fast into many different communities. We must identify the Connectors in our midst so that we can equip them to take the gospel message into their sphere of influence. When this happens a movement begins. People from many different backgrounds begin to interact and catch a similar passion and the movement grows.

The second kind of person is a “Maven”. Maven’s are the kind of people who know everything and they genuinely like to help you. A Maven is someone that people trust and turn to for advice. These are the people who correct Consumer Reports. When a Maven speaks you do what they say because you know they are right and that they have the done the research.

Imagine a Maven who comes to faith in Christ. When they go back to the people with whom they have relationships their testimony will have great power. It’s because those in their sphere of influence will respond to what they have to say. If Jesus works for the Maven, then Jesus will work for me. The power and influence would be incredible. However, they typically have smaller networks than a Connector.

The third person is the Salesman. A Salesman is the kind of person who gets results. They are larger than life personalities and they are able to win you over at “hello”. You know the kind of person that I am talking about. You are their best friend instantly. Salesmen have huge networks of shallow relationships. In spite of the shallow relationships they are highly effective at spreading an idea because people seemingly “can’t help but respond” to what they have to say.

A friend of mine named Darin is a Salesman. He said that everyone he ever met was his friend. People love to say yes Darin. It’s amazing to watch him have conversations with people. Within ten minutes they would trust Darin to care for their child (slight exaggeration, but you get my point)! People like Darin can tip a ministry into a movement. These are people who get tagged with “the gift of evangelism”.

In your community can you identify the Connectors, Mavens, and Salesmen? If your community is going to become a movement you need must be able to do this. To do this requires you as a leader to be have a great interest in every single person in your ministry.

Simply put movements explode because of the Law of the Few.

There are few things in life that frustrate me more than watching other parents do things that hinder their child’s spiritual growth. This may sound arrogant to you, it probably is. I am not a perfect parent, not even close. I get frustrated with my kids and I even yell at the little darlings every once in a while. I think over the last eight years (that’s how old our oldest is) I have asked for forgiveness more times than I can count (but that’s another issue for another post). This post is about pressure. Overbearing pressure does exactly this, it hinders spiritual growth.

I see parents all over the place putting undue and unrealistic pressure on children. This pressure broadens a relational rift between parents and children that naturally occurs at this age. This is many times seen in the context of education. Today more and more kids are pushed into AP classes. These classes are taught at a very high level and are preparatory classes to test for college credits. I took AP classes in High School but I had a Mom who understood that these classes were designed too teach me how to think and do research and that I would most likely not get an A. Her concern was that I simply worked hard and did my best.

I think that the disconnect has entered in because it seems that a B is not good enough anymore. That an A is required fare to prove that a kid is “working hard”. These grades have become the ultimate driving force in a parent’s life. They punish their child for a B in a college level course that they themselves would have no chance to pass. Students are then punished for doing well enough. Their punishment is often times limiting their involvement in social interactions. This limit is applied to the their faith community too. The youth group is seen as a “privilege” that can be taken away.

Please hear me, I am not saying that we should not push our children to excellence. I am not saying that we should not encourage them to take on academic or athletic challenges.

I am saying that we need to help them bring balance to their lives. If we push them to be all consumed with their academics or their athletics then we are clearly communicating something. We are communicating that these are the things around which life revolves. The center of life is your ability to “achieve”.

I have this sad image in my head of many parents standing before the God, whom they love, asking why their child is not spending eternity with them. Jesus’ face turns grim and says, “My brothers and sisters you taught them that a grade was better than me. You taught them that a grade was better than my people. You taught them to set me and my people aside to study and get a B+ instead of a B. You taught them that “the now” matters more than their eternity did. You taught them to love themselves over me. You taught them to love being apart from me and now what you have taught them has come to fruition.“

[caption id=“attachment_683” align=“alignleft” width=“300” caption=“A Case Study in Missing the Point!”]

[/caption]

That’s what I call alliteration! Gen Y, Millenials, whatever you want to call them are the example for future generations to follow. Pew Research has just published a very interesting study that looks at the lives of these teens and twenty somethings. The basic gist is that they are connected via technology, they are diverse, they are optimistic, and they becoming frustrated with the status quo.

Two things in particular stuck out at me. First, this generation cares about the same things that generations past cared about: marriage and family. This is something that I think is insightful. We must come to terms with the reality that at the core of their being the emerging generations are people who are created in the image of God and their longings are going to be similar to those of the past. This does not take away from the fact that they are going to express these longings differently. For example, this generation is waiting longer to marry and begin their families. Why? I think because men do not have a clearly defined entry into adulthood and because of “the economy stupid”.

The second thing that interests me is the fact that this generation is already getting frustrated with politicians. It was a generation that became highly motivated during the election and has not had their agenda delivered. They believe that the government should help but are coming to realize that it might not be the answer they are looking for.

These two issues highlight for me where we, as the church, can step in and speak directly to this generation if we are willing to speak their language. Will we show them the church of Jesus Christ that radically effects change or will we be another voice in the wilderness gonging away? Will we teach them the principles of healthy marriages and families? Will we demonstrate for them these principles? I hope so. If we are going to speak to this generation things will have to change in the church because we are not doing a very good job right now.

However, there is an example of this beginning to happen in my own little church. There is a woman, named Robin, who is a part of our small group. She is gathering young moms and empty nest moms together. This is a time for encouragement and love. This is a time for the young moms to realize that they are not alone and that others have walked their paths. This is a time when principles will be taught and demonstrated, not in some classroom, but in the context of life.

Friends, God is on the move and he cares about this generation and he wants them to hear his story and his message. He desires for them to respond. We are his ambassadors. Will we speak the language? Will show and demonstrate? I hope so.

I am currently reading Malcolm Gladwell’s The Tipping Point. It’s a fascinating read. One of the things that has really stuck out to me is the chapter on Dunbar’s number, 150. This is the number of meaningful relationships that a person can have. Human beings tend to only be able to handle 150 or fewer meaningful relationships. Today, I ran across an article from MediaPost Publications that discusses the way that college students have their contacts broken down.

The study found that the average college student has, “Exactly 87 email contacts, 146 cell phone contacts, and 438 “friends” on social networks.“ What struck me was the cell phone contacts, 146. My guess is that the people in the cell phone are those who are considered “meaningful” relationships.

In this article they add these numbers up to come up with an influence circle of 671. However, I think that the real number is 146. These are the people who will actually respond to the student. These are the people who will trust what they hear from the person. My guess is that these 146 are duplicated in their social media and also in email.

146. That’s awful close to 150. More thoughts on this to come…

http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?lt1=_blank&bc1=FFFFFF&IS2=1&bg1=FFFFFF&fc1=000000&lc1=0000FF&t=danielmroseco-20&o=1&p=8&l=as1&m=amazon&f=ifr&asins=0525951369 A number of weeks ago I reviewed Tim Keller’s Counterfeit Gods. Over the next few days I am going to work through this little book with some thoughts of my own. I hope that you will find it to be a beneficial conversation. I hope that you will join in via the comments section. I think that these posts will be timely during Lent which is a time of preparation and setting aside idols in our lives.

The opening chapter discusses the story of Abraham from the perspective of “what happens when you get all you ever wanted?” This is a great question! As we consider our lives most of what we do is so that we can get what we want. We train and prepare for certain jobs so that we can make money. We take this money and we use it to buy what we want. It might be a house, a car, some tech toy, or even the right clothes or the right look to get the right girl (or guy).

Some people never get what they want and this desire drives them throughout their lives. Many get what they want. When you do the question is, “now what?” As I look around this world I think people just begin the process to get the next bigger and better version of whatever our desire is.

As Keller points out, God often asks for this back. Why? It’s because when we get what we want it becomes the center of our lives. This “thing” displaces God. This, according to Keller, is the center of the Abraham story. Abraham got his son. God asked for his son back and when Abraham was willing to give him it proved that Isaac was not the center of his life. I think that this is a legitimate interpretation of the story.

As I consider my own life I think that there are a two things right now that need to be given back to God. First, entertainment. I love to be entertained. I enjoy an evening at home relaxing on the couch and taking in my latest DVR’ed goodness. This time could be used to talk with my bride. It could be spent reading. It could be spent praying. It could be spent…well you get the point. I do not think that relaxing with a good television show is all that bad. I will continue to do so. However, I think that it needs to be put in proper perspective and I need to make sure that it is not choice numero uno!

Second, the internet. I love surfing the web and being in the know. If you check out my strength finder profile you will see that input is one my strengths. However, it can quickly become ruinous. This is because I can spend hours gaining input, reading news, anything that will find my mind with new facts and details. Information gathering becomes central. Part of the reason for this blog is to help me slow down and communicate out some of what I am inputting through out my daily routine.

What about you? What is displacing God in your life?

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

A sermon on Hebrews 1:5–2:4

[podcast]https://danielmrose.com/wp-content/uploads/Grace-100221-reduced.mp3[/podcast]

A sermon on Hebrews 1:1–4

[podcast]https://danielmrose.com/wp-content/uploads/Grace-100214-reduced.mp3[/podcast]

One of the things that I have been struck with over the past few months is that many people are unwilling to think and even more unwilling to listen. We have been trained to process what we will say next and as a result we do not hear what is being said to us. It is this phenomenon that I think leads us to the place where we no longer actually think. Thinking requires listening and processing. One of the places that I have been finding this to be true is in the context of book reviews. Most recently has been the discussion that has been going on over Brian McLaren’s most recent book, “A New Kind of Christianity”. I do not have this book. I have not read this book. My point is not to enter into conversation about McLaren or his writing but to look at the way that the conversation has been going forward.

The men and women who have responded to McLaren’s latest title are brilliant people (at least the ones I have read) and have presented critiques that I am sure need to be made. What I found most interesting was the interaction between McLaren and Bill Kinnon. This is the first time I have read Kinnon’s blog and so I do not have a vast working knowledge of his writing.

The posts between the two men are long. So let me summarize:

• Kinnon: Brian, I have these questions.
• Brian: Bill, you don’t understand me.

Is this a bit of reductionistic, tongue-in-cheek, hyperbole? Sure. But, the point is that it seems that Kinnon and McLaren simply speak past one another. It is as if they both have a perspective and they are not willing to think the other person’s point. This is a microcosm of what we see on Capitol Hill everyday in the “bipartisan” conversation.

It seems to me that we would be much better served to slow down and listen. This listening will cause us to think. Thinking might lead us to realize that there is much middle ground upon which we can agree on. Will there be outliers that we will ALWAYS disagree about? Yes. But, what if, and I am just spit-balling here, what if we found common ground and moved forward?

Oh wait, that last idea does not sell books or drive site traffic. (Sorry that might be a bit too cynical or not.)

I have had a few conversations over the last couple of days about rule following. What does it mean to follow the rules? What is the line between the letter and spirit of the law? How do we determine this? What is the impact on our spiritual lives? What if following the letter of the law causes injury? What if following the spirit of the law is just our way of undermining authority? These are the questions that have been batted around in my world. These conversations have been stimulating and interesting. I am not sure though if we have dealt with the issue well.

I think that the biggest question that needs to be dealt with is that of determination. How do we determine when to set aside the letter of the law in favor of its spirit? This line is gray. There is no ideal or final answer in my opinion. However, I think there are some principles that we can follow.

1. In following the spirit of the law are we negating the law completely?
2. In following the spirit of the law are we taking seriously the reasons for the law?
3. In following the spirit of the law are we doing so for our own selfish gain?
4. In following the spirit of the law are we simply not willing to accept the consequences for breaking the law?

These questions are the ones that I believe need to be answered as we try to determine when we are indeed following the spirit of the law as opposed to simply breaking the law. If we can answer these questions appropriately then we are indeed in line with an ethically acceptably response to the law.

What say you? How do you determine whether or not you are in step with the spirit of the law?

I like to think. I like to think new things and seek to develop original ideas. I also enjoy reading and interacting with those who think in fresh ways. One of the people who I enjoy reading is David Fitch. He is a missiologist who is calling the church to be local and missional. He understands that the gospel needs to be contextualized to particular local contexts without undermining its narrative truth.

That being said, I think that David does something in a recent post which is not authentic. He is discussing how to deal with conflict in the community of believers. He evaluates two approaches which are highlighted in the work of Al Mohler and Brian McLaren. He argues that neither of their approaches (autocratic or democratic) fit with the biblical model and he calls for a “new” approach, the incarnational.

I want to briefly summarize this approach:

• People in disagreement are encouraged to discuss one on one.
• If there is continued disagreement three or four are brought together.
• If there is continued disagreement the acknowledged leaders are brought into the conversation.
• If there is continued disagreement the issue is brought before the whole church.

If this sounds strangely familiar it is because it is. This is what we find in Matthew 18. It is also the methodology outlined in the Book of Order for the Evangelical Presbyterian Church. I appreciate that David is calling the church back to this reality. I agree with his conclusions. What I struggle with is that he encapsulates the call in language that makes it sound like a “new” thing.

I think we need to be careful about a quest for the unconventional that does not credit the past rightly. I also think that we need to look around and notice that many of the processes put in place by those who have come before us are good and helpful.

I love the moment when an idea flashes in my mind and I grab hold of it and it turns into something worthwhile. This happened a number of weeks ago when I was hanging out with a friend of mine named Zak. I was asking him about his friends and what kind of context they would most likely come out to for a conversation about spiritual things. He said that a coffee house would be best. In that moment, what would come to be called Coffee/Doubt, was born.

An idea became a vision which became a mission.

Things started slow but momentum has been growing and continues to grow. The beautiful thing though is that it’s not really mine. It’s Zak’s. He own this things. Last Thursday there were sixteen adults and kids sitting at Starbucks for a conversation and Zak led it. Zak is a 16 year old guy who gets fat lips in mosh-pits and has two rings in his lower lip. He is not evangelical Christendom’s poster child which looks likes this:

I love the fact that this is not mine. I love that it’s Zak’s! For an idea to become mission it requires ownership. Who owns your ideas? Are you giving it away?