God does not call us to love the world. He does not command us to love everyone. (yes, I just said that) God, the Bible says, loves the world. God loves everyone.

But the second greatest commandment is to “love our neighbor.”

The question, for thousands of years has been, “who is my neighbor?” Jesus himself got asked this question. And yes, Jesus greatly expanded who we are to think of as our “neighbor”- pagans, enemies, the poor, the unclean, etc.

But I would like to ask a different question. Not, “who is our neighbor?” But, “why neighbor?” Why not just command us to love the world, love everyone? If that is the nature of God, why not command us to do the same?

We do not have the capacity to love the world, to love everyone. God does. But we do not. The command to love our neighbor is a profound statement about what our love is to be like. Our neighbors are the people that God has placed in our lives. They are real, and tangible, and close. They have names. They are our family, friends, co-workers, and literally neighbors.

I think we have made a huge mistake in expanding the word neighbor to mean “everyone.” When we do this, we turn our love into an emotion without much content. Love becomes a feeling we are supposed to have, but a feeling that is incapable of changing the world. I believe that God called us to a much more powerful and tangible kind of love.

God calls us to love our neighbors. To love the people he has placed in our life… but to love them well. This is a tangible sort of love, expressed in action- time, meals, visits, phone calls, prayers, play, shared experiences, and so much more.

God does not call us to love the world. But He has called us to love our neighbors- the people He has placed in our life. But He has called us to love them well.

Our energy is not meant to be spent on trying to love more and more people. Rather, it is best spent on loving the people in our live better- in a way that changes things.

My first year in seminary, I had to interview for a few internships.  All of us first year students would talk with the internship director, who would try and place us with churches that matched our gifts and passions.  For this reason, I interviewed with a handful of churches looking to do local outreach.

While the interviews were designed for the leadership to get to know me, this was one of my first experiences getting to know church leadership.  It was one of my first experiences “behind the scenes”… getting to see how things run, the questions pastors ask, the goals they have, etc.

Again, all the churches I interviewed with were interested in doing more local outreach.  But over the course of our conversations, I discovered something that continues to bother and frustrate me.  These churches were driven to outreach out of selfish motives (not blatant, evil selfishness, but a real self-focus).

In these particular cases, the churches were dwindling.  The communities were filled with people with grey hair.   And the pastors were waking up to the fact that if they did not begin to reach out, the church would be in jeopardy of closing.  No doubt, many pastors and communities are waking up to that reality daily across the country.  But I remember leaving these interviews slightly confused and frustrated… they wanted to reach out to the community for  the wrong reasons.  Self preservation is not a good motive for loving our neighbor.  It allows “self” to remain our first love.  Which, makes loving others secondary.

It has been many years since that experience.  And I have learned that this is not just a problem for the small, dwindling congregation.  It may be more of an issue for many of the pastors serving in growing churches, many of them strong and stable.  What I mean by this, is church leadership often focuses on itself first.  Too many pastors, it seems, are driven by an image of success that highlights the “type of church” they want to lead.  While there is nothing evil in this, I believe it is subtly dangerous.  When “self” becomes the priority, things like outreach become secondary.  In other words, outreach becomes the means by which we become the type of church we want to be.  In this way, our outreach is not motivated by broken hearts but by becoming successful (success is a form of narcissism).

I think this is made most evident in our hearts and the language we use.  First, where is our heart?  If we are honest, many of our hearts are set on creating a certain type of church.  Again, there is nothing wrong with this… unless our hearts become more set on this than loving others.  Second, listen to the language we use.  I am amazed by the difference between pastors who talk about their city and pastors who talk about their church.  We tend to talk about the things that are on our hearts.  When the people of our city our continually on our hearts, we will talk about them and how we can show love and serve them.  When our church (and more so its style and programs, than people) are on our hearts, we will tend to talk about these things often.

These things are not mutually exclusive.  However, I believe we have gotten things quite confused and out of order.

This is something I have been thinking a lot about lately:  “Where do we do life?”
1) Solitude/Individually. In many ways, I think many of us have forgotten how to live in solitude. By that I mean we live in a world of noise. We are constantly surrounded by people, entertainment,advertisement , etc. And in the process our identity becomes wrapped up in all of these things, most all of which are superficial. Rare are the people who can go beneath all of these things and become familiar with their soul, the soul of God, and see the souls of others.

At the same time, we live in an individualistic world. Isolation and loneliness are commonplace for most modern Westerners. Though most of us have many relationships, few of us have true community. There seems little doubt in my mind that this is largely due to our selfish and individualistic priorities. So, we have people that rarely are alone, but also rarely in meaningful community.

How do we re-learn how to do life in solitude? Do you do life here? Does this enhance your communal relationships or make them more awkward? Do you find your identity more so here, or in your relationships with others?

2.) Community. As stated above, having relationships is not the same thing as being in community. We live in a world in which relationships are plentiful, but community is rare. Of course, many of us mistake human interaction as community. I do not use this word that way. Updating facebook pages, chatting for a few minutes after church, or making an occasional phone call is not community in my opinion. All of these things probably occur in community, but they are the by product of sharing life together. This by its very nature cannot be superficial. It requires large amounts of time and energy. It certainly is not efficient. And I believe it requires proximity.

To my point: How many of us do life in community? Again, I see tension. For many, sharing life looks like a series of relationships that continually begin, end, and begin again. Even our “closest” friendships are broken by distance, busyness, work, “growing apart”, going our own way, etc. We do life first as an individual, probably bouncing between many “communities”. I think this can also be true of the church. How is this also true of church? Our our church communities marked more by scatteredness, busyness, and going our own ways? Or, are they more readily described as a “sharing life together”?

3.) Mission (communitas). How many of us, as individuals or communities, do our life in missions? By that I mean, how many of us live our life in the context of the brokenness of others. How many of us “do life” with people who are hurting, forgotten, in poverty, etc.? For those of us who have discovered solitude and community, what about mission? Is mission “where we live” or is it more an activity done by an individual or community (at a specific time)?  And can community take us out of mission?

Rarely do I hear people speak of missions as a way of life. Mostly, I hear of it spoken of as a project or activity for an individual or community. As a project, mission becomes “out there”- separate from everyday life.

I believe that we can, and should, be living in solitude, community, and missions. These things, in my opinion, should support each other. Too often times, solitdue is drown by noise, community superficial, and missions a program (or lost to a non-missional community). Then we find ourselves often alone but busy and surrounded by people, unfamiliar with our soul, and though involved in church, too often far from both community and mission (again, community and mission are “out there”).

Just thoughts. Maybe because I am seeking more of all 3 (solitude, community, and mission). Where are you all at?

I think sometimes it is easy to disconnect ourselves from history. This can be dangerous because in history we learn the dynamic nature of both life and God. And if it is true that both life and God are dynamic, we cannot remain static. All of this comes to mind as I wrestle with the formation of leadership in the church.

For many of us, we assume that present church leadership is how the church has always functioned (for the most part). This makes it easy to embrace. It is all we have ever known personally. And we have not witnessed any “better” alternative. This is not only true of church leadership, but the church itself – its structure, purpose, and practices.

In the past couple of years I have been challenged to both reconnect with history and dream again what the church (and its leadership) might be “in a time such as this”.

1) The early church: Lead by apostles, focused on mission. “Devoted themselves to the apostles teaching” (Acts 4). This developed into pluralistic leadership based on calling and gifts. Deacons were assigned responsibilities very early. In Ephesians we read that God has given some to be apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers. And all of leadership was for the purpose of “equipping the saints for ministry”. In other words, all who were followers of the Way were ordained into ministry/mission.

2) From apostles to priests: The church moved from the margins of society to being the official religion of the state (empire). Infant baptism determined who was part of the church. In this transition, the leadership of the church became priestly. The mission of the church in proclaiming the “kingdom of God” now became more a function of the empire. Leadership became responsible for holding services, administering sacraments, interceding for people. In a way, the church became the chaplain of the empire. Leadership during this period included a lot of power and authority (very hierarchical).

3) (Reformation) From priests to pedagogues (literally “teachers of children”): Although the Reformation was a very large paradigm shift, it did not alter the assumptions of church leadership too much. The nature of the church changed. What was the “true” church became important. Thousands of splits and denominations emerged. So while leadership remained hierarchical, doctrine became extremely important and a point of contention. Therefore, the function of leadership became that of a teacher – teach correct doctrine (which many people disagreed and fought over), the “true” gospel, etc.

4) From pedagogue to professional: The Enlightenment brought with it the rise of science and education. Reason became the driving force of truth. The church tried to keep pace and made theology an academic pursuit, placing alongside science and philosophy in the university. As this developed, leadership developed into professional, seminary trained theologians. In addition, the training of ministers almost solely focused on teaching. Reason and education did not have categories for apostles, prophets, etc. Or, if these things were addressed, they became a subject to be taught. “Professional” ministers trained in academia became the dominant leadership model. Again, this inherently priviledged certain trained Christians for ministry while lay people remained more passive.

5) Today, we still inherit a “professional” model: Church leaders and leadership still operate in a very professional and specialized mindset. Theologians, pastors, counselors, managers (executive directors), youth specialists, etc. are all professional job titles. The church most often functions as a business. There is a very distinct line between professional church “staff” and lay leaders. The Enlightenment still informs a leadership philosophy where teachers/pastors are given priority over apostles, prophets, evangelists. The congregation is largely the group of people being ministered to, and rarely considered ordained by God to the mission of the church.

6) From professional to missional leadership: As America (and the Western world) becomes more and more pluralistic, Christianity is again going to be moved to the margins of society. While America is use to sending missionaries to foreign lands, America itself has become a mission field. Churches as businesses are competing for a shrinking customer base (I hate that language by the way). Therefore, churches and church leadership need to re-discover their missional identity. A pastor/teacher ministering to and leading a congregation will not be sufficient. Leadership will not be for a single person, but for a community of multi-gifted people. Even more, the ministry of the church will not fall on the shoulders of a professional staff, but is the responsibilty of the “priesthood of believers”. There are no professionals- there is a community of called people, each with their own gifts and experiences (some leadership). This community is the body of Christ called the to mission of God in the world.

How do we move forward? How do we stay dynamic as God’s people in the world? What do you think? Is your church a missional community? a priesthood of believers? Are you static as a community, leaving the professional leadership to be active for you? Are you competing with other churches over Christians in your city, or engaging together missionally to reach a pluralistic world? Where are you in God’s Story?

I believe if one contemplates the nature and purpose of the church, they will inevitably find themselves pondering the mission of God in the world. I also believe that if anyone contemplates the mission of God in the world, they will find themselves pondering the nature and purpose of the church.

That is to say, practically, God’s mission of redeeming the world does not exist without the church. And it is also to say, that when the church forgets (or marganilizes) God’s mission, it forgets how to be itself.

Sometimes I assume I know what the gospel means.  What I mean is, that when I read the Bible and see the word “gospel” I gloss over it taking for granted that I understand what Jesus and the biblical writers mean.  However, when I take some time to slow down and study, I realize how little I understand about the gospel Jesus proclaimed.   What I understand is my gospel.  My gospel is small- mostly about individuals getting right with God to secure a place in heaven.  Jesus’ gospel was the proclamation of the Kingdom of God- and it was big, and and mysterious, and world-changing.  It is not that my gospel is wrong or unbiblical.  It is just reduced.  In my gospel, God is out to save a few people that will believe in Him.  In Jesus’ gospel, God is out to save the world!

In C.S. Lewis’ “The Lion, the Witch, and the Waredrobe” some kids stumble into a magical land where it is constantly winter.  The land is under the spell of the White Witch (the satan figure) who has made the land permenantly frigid so there is no Christmas (I believe I am getting the story right).  But as the kids continue on their journey, they experience moments where the winter gives way to spring.  The snow begins to melt, birds sing, flowers begin to bloom.  Confused, the kids ask what is happening.  The answer: “Aslan (the Christ figure) is on the move!”

Maybe this is a glimspe of what Jesus meant when he proclaimed the gospel of the Kingdom.  The world as we know it is in one long winter.  There is sin, death, depression, brokenness, war, and hunger.  But in Jesus, spring is on the horizon.  Aslan is on the move.  Through God coming near- through Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection- winter has lost its power.  Yes, individuals are set free from their sins and made right with God.  But there is more.  All of creation is yearning to be set free from sin’s winter.  The gospel of the Kingdom seems to hint at it all being made right- all of creation under the reign of God- at harmony with Him, with each other, and with creation.

God is on the move!

This post has been in the back of my mind for awhile.

By “text” I am referring to the Bible. By “context” I am referring to the enviroment we find ourselves in. Scripture is undoubtedly at the core of the Christian faith. It is right there with prayer, the Trinity, communtiy (the church), and the other essential parts of the Christian life. Scriptue is God’s Story, God-breathed, the Word of God, and in it are the truths of God. Still, as much as the church affirms all these things, we realize that there is more to the puzzle. In and outside the church, scripture is used for a variety of reasons. And it does not take an observant person long to realize that as powerful as the Bible is, how it is interpreted and used is critical in determining how it shapes peoples’ lives.

Many people have claimed that THEIR interpretation of scripture is the CORRECT ONE (and by ONE, they mean ONE). In a way, I resonate with this. I truly believe that there is truth in scripture,- not just truth, but God’s truth. I do not question this Story or the truth in it- it is the way in which I narrate my life; it is authoritative, or “my framing story”. (you can descibe this in a variety of ways). But what I am learning is that scripture, God’s Story, is always interpreted. And interpretation is both necessary, but also dangerous. I believe that there are some really bad interpretations of scripture that are quite frankly, wrong. But I also believe that there are a variety of ways to interpret the Bible that are FAITHFUL. God’s truth, the Story, does not vary! But the contexts in which it is read, interpreted, and lived into vary.

All this to say, the life of the church needs to take seriously both the text and the context. What has been especially interesting to me lately is the variety of contexts I have found myself in over the past few years. These differing experiences have really influenced the way I read and interpret scripture. For example, reading scripture while being on staff at predominantly white, middle upper class churches is a very different context than reading scripture while bartending and hanging out with non-Christians, single mothers trying to pay bills, or borderline alcoholics. Reading scripture while building houses for the homeless in Tijuana or while among my fraternity brothers sheds new light on the teachings of Jesus- with each new context comes insights into God’s grace, God’s zeal for justice, or God’s distaste for apathetic religion. Scripture, the gospel, are for all these contexts. And this is what I am wrestling with…

My question is, from what context do we read scripture? And do we need to be more aware of our contexts and interpretations, namely their limitations? And can we do a better job not just reading scripture in church, but rather as we incarnate different contexts and share God’s story in them?

I have been challenged and affirmed again in my belief that Missions is at the heart of what it means to be the church. Let me summerize the history of church planting in the last 50-60 years in America :

1) the 50’s t0 the 70’s (Building and Boom): This was a boom time in America. It was also the birth and boom of the suburbs, in which people fled the cities to populate new subdivisions. Of course, church planting mirrored culture. All these people and towns did not have churches. So church planting, more or less, became providing a service for those Christians moving out to the suburbs.

2) 70’s to the 90’s (Relevent and Attractional): In the race for the american dream (esp. the pursuit of money and worldly things), the influences of (pagan) society, and the advances of modernity- the church had a difficult time competing. For many, the church of their parents (Catholics, Lutherans, Reformed, etc), became irrelevent, out of date, etc. Therefore, the churches of the 70’s and 80’s sought to become “relevent”. This then gave way to the mega-church phenomenon of the 90’s.  As relevent became the goal, churches often times found themeselves mimicking buisness and entertainment.  Hence, the emphais of church planting then (and now) in being relevant is to have the best music, programing, media, etc. The method was/is to attract people to church. Though geared towards “seekers”, this relevent style of church relied heavily upon churched people who grew frustrated with traditional upbringing.

Both of these past two models that we have inherited are based upon Christendom. In the 50’s and 60’s, church planting assumed that the church had a prominent and powerful role in society and that there were large crowds of Christians to draw upon, lead, organize, serve, etc. In the 80’s and 90’s, the modern mega-church assumed that there were still large populations of people that were raised in church and/or knew the language of church/the gospel. The focus then became in HOW we do church- communication, media/technology, the clothes we can wear, etc. Words like “new”, “relevant”, “fresh”, became why a person should attend that church. Advertising, rock bands, big screen TV’s, became very important. Though the “seeker” may have been the target- the attractional nature/method of church planting still assumed that the church had a prominent role in society, that most people knew the language of the gospel, and drew upon the millions of Americans that were raised in one form of church or another.

Church planting in post-Christendom: I am 26 and have spent the past 4 -8 years pretty in tune with youth and young adult culture. I am becoming more and more convinced that the assumptions of Christendom (and church methods built upon them) are not going to be effective in ministering to my generation. Let me be clear on two things:

1) Both these models/methods were great for their time and purpose. In no way do I want to put down these models of structuring church (this is the tendency of some missional/emergent- minded folks).

2) There are places and cultures where BOTH of these models are appropriate and vibrant. Christendom is still alive and well in large parts of America. Traditional and attractional church still make sense in a lot of cultures. Conversely, what I am about to suggest in regard to organic, missional church planting communities, will not make sense in certain parts of America (or parts of the world). (Traditional and attarctional methods of church still probably make sense in most parts of Indiana, Texas, and Holland, MI.)

That said, I really believe we need to be aware of where these methods and models do not make sense. We must be aware of the rapidly growing population of people who do not know the story, the language, church. We must begin to realize that no matter how great our band, or media, or building may be, these things are not effective in attarcting people (who don’t know the story, language, etc) to “church” in New York, Boston, Chicago, etc. In these places and in much of my generation, the mission cannot be to have the coolest church, best media, hippest music, or newest worship service. These things will become marginal, at best, to a generation that is broken and knows more about Brittney Spears than Jesus Christ.

Attractional, will and must, give way to missional. Missions will no longer be part of what the church does, it will be the church. Programs must decrease so that relationships/community increaces. Church structure and mission will not focus on novelty and communicating to/entertaining those who know the language, but ministering in organic and missional ways to the broken and sin-stained in their community.

Navigating culture today is tricky. Personally, I reckon I am situated in a culture that has one foot in Christendom and one foot in post-Christendom. The tensions of culture, generations, and church structure are great. And there is a danger in setting these things over and against each other. Yet it is so important that we continue to push forward, ask the questions, engage culture, rework assumptions, and be adimant about keeping the heart of God at the center of our church communities.

On that last note- about the heart of God being at the center of our church communities- I must again emphasize our need to wrestle with and take seriously the church as organic, missional communities. I worry that church leadership born out of the traditional and attractional methods, trust in their methods too much. Again, these models worked and still work today- but not for most of my generation. Sure, there are still boomers and kids of boomers raised in youth groups who know the language and can find refuge and strength in these churches. But our population is dwindling and I fear extinction is on the horizon.

But if you walk into a bar or high school somewhere in the city and strike up a conversation… I think we will begin to see that traditional and attractional must give way to missional.

Agree? Disagree?

Check out this Blog entry: here

It is by my professor, David Fitch, who is also a church-planter/pastor.  He wrestles with some of the tensions and challenges of leading a missional church community.   I think David has some very honest and profound thoughts that we ought to be wrestling with.

Let me know what you think.

I had coffee today with a friend who asked me the question: “How do you create a redemptive community that does the mission of God in the world?” I told him the answer, and we moved on. Not really. But what a great question- especially for anyone who has a passion for the church or church planting.

I shared some thoughts with him from Alan Hirsh, David Fitch, and others. Here are some creative ideas (mostly that I have stole from people smarter than myself). This is what such a community might look like and why:

1) Communal. I asked him if he enjoyed college… and why. He answered like everyone else I have asked this question to- yes, and because of the community (Being in relationships with people, day in and day out). If we are going to dream up a redemptive community, we must wrestle on how we can do relationships (life together) better. We must be creative in how we order our lives, use our time, choose our dwellings, etc. I have a strong feeling that this has to go way beyond gathering on Sunday mornings and small groups. We must seek to figure out how to be in community when life is hard, and ugly, and “church” does not “feel” good. We talked about time, and shared experiences (esp. doing service and missions together versus sitting around a living room trying to facilitate conversation), and trust. Can we create this sort of community?

2) Dreaming up new leadership structures. We talked about being bi-vocational (having leaders in the church supplementing their income through other jobs) and having communal leadership (3, 4, 5 pastors/leaders). See Hirsh and Frost’s “The Shaping of Things to Come” for more on this. We talked about how this fosters community, provides a fuller spectrum of gifts, keeps leaders plugged into “the world”, allows them to empathize with the struggles of their congregation, resists the draw of cultic personalities, makes room for the prophetic voice because the leaders’ income is not tied to the pockets of the congregation. We discussed how if the church grows, multiple leadership makes it easier to divide and multiply (cellular growth/planting more churches).

3) Missions, Listening, and Diversity. We talked about being the church as opposed to doing church. And that being the church ought to require us to be on the mission of God in the world. And that in order to do missions, we have to listen to the needs, suffering, injustices, etc of our larger communities. And then we discussed how different the churches ought to look as they each incarnate a certain neighborhood or community, with its unique culture, personality, sin, etc.

Sacrifice. We talked about a lot more, but at the end of our conversation we talked about sacrifice. And we came to the realization that there is so much possibility, but that all of this might hinge on sacrifice. Because when all this stuff becomes practical (versus theoretical)- stuff changes. Doing community requires sacrifice- maybe giving up having a nice secluded house in the suburbs, giving up time, or TV. Community requires proximity- and when you talk about the specifics of proximity, stuff changes- sacrifices have to be made.

Leadership. Being bi-vocational is harder (for most, esp. if you are of the typical protestant church mindset). It requires picking up a second skill set, working extra hours, and the loss of certain benefits of full-time ministry. I mean there is something nice about being paid 30, 40, 50 thousand dollars a year to be a full-time pastor. There is something assuring (or ego-boosting) to be the one on stage all the time- the cultic personality. Communal leadership requires humility, submission, repentance, and other things that often times do not come with senior pastor leadership (which can error on the side of control, power, and isolation).

And being missional can be disturbingly sacrificial. Because if we really listen to the needs, pain, and injustices of our towns, cities, and world- this can often times lead us to places we would not normally go. Do not get me wrong- there are huge needs in the suburbs (actually, there is more poverty in the suburbs than the cities now- for one example). But if we listen to the cries of our world, they often times take us to places American culture tells us to avoid (because we do not want to be like “they” are). I just really believe if we honestly listen to the suffering around us with the intent to respond, we will immediately understand the sacrifice of the response.

So in this slew of thoughts, remains this question of sacrifice. It is one thing to dream up what the church might be, how it can do and be so much more, how it can address suffering and the needs of the world, etc. But there remains the question of how much are we willing to sacrifice in order to make this dream a reality.