Thursday, September 30, 2010

WT... is Missional?

I was so jaded toward this word “missional” just a year ago. I was so pissed off because it was in the title of half the books that everyone was telling me I needed to read. It seemed trendy and cheap and devoid of meaning. The seminary I chose to attend put it in the title of every class I had to take (or so it seemed). But for the sake of a few humble men who exemplified everything I wanted to be, I forged ahead to this school, and I tried hard to keep an open mind.

 I’ve learned a few things since that time. First, I learned that missiology had been around for decades. I learned that “Missional” wasn’t so much a trend as it was an entire shift in thinking. It had its own hermeneutic, its own theologians, and it had been hijacked by institutions and authors who picked up on its marketing value.  

I learned that many of its proponents were modern day reformed theologians who embraced a redemptive historical approach to understanding the bible with extended cultural application. Slowly but surely, I began to embrace this school of thought, and with it came a few other words I’ve come to like:

Ecumenical:
In the Foreword to the book “Your church is too small” J.I. Packer (that’s right people, J.I. PACKER!) said this: 

                “My friend John Armstrong is a church leader who has traveled the distance from the separatist, sectarian fixity of fundamentalism to embrace the kingdom-centered vision of the church and the call issued by a number of Bible-based theologians and missioligists during the past half century.
                What vision is this? It is the one that views the visible church as a single worldwide, Spirit-sustained community within which ongoing doctrinal and denominational divisions, though important, are secondary rather than primary. In this vision the primary is the missional-ecumenical vocation and trajectory crystallized for us by our Lord Jesus Christ in his teaching and prayer and illustrated in a normative way by the Acts narrative and much of the reasoning of the apostolic letters.”
To summarize, the missional church recognizes the need for the body of Christ to be united. I believe that this process is taking place by the erosion of the exclusive, self important movements that are in sharp decline. I believe that my generation is the one that will really get this going (well, those of us who haven’t gone to institutions that boast of their superiority and condemn things they do not understand).

Incarnational

Very simple… God made his dwelling among us. He still does. Do the same… make your dwelling among the poor, the broken, and enter into their experience at the sacrifice of yourself. 

Narrative Theology

I heard Scott McKnight say in a lecture that most evangelical Protestants bibles only contain two chapters: Genesis 3, and Romans 3. We start with the problem, and jump right to the solution in our presentation of the gospel. Narrative theology looks at the whole of the biblical narrative, starting in Genesis 1 with man being created as an Icon (which means image, don’t get your theological panties in a twist!). The narrative of the bible is an entire movement toward reconciliation. I hate to burst your bubble Protestants, but it’s bigger than your soul and your location after death.

 And if you feel like I’m singling out Protestantism as a severely individualistic movement, I am. I recently read a commentary on “A Communist Manifesto”. The author, a world renowned historian from Cambridge, kept coming back to the fact that Communism in its more modern construction has historically been developed by Protestantism and Judaism. The atheist embraced the ethics of the communist party, but rejected with disdain the individualism of Protestantism (and began to see religion as one of the primary oppressors of the people). So the next time you’re trying to figure out how the church in the Global West became so “me focused”, know that this critique/observation has been well documented for at the very least two centuries. 

In essence, I gave a definition of what “missional” means in my post “Church as we know it.” Missional as I understand it, carries with it a lot of convictions: Ecumenical, Incarnational, Narrative theology. But since I’ve complicated matters greatly here you have it folks, the missional church… simple.

I will stand


I will stand…
As the wind whips, as the cold wind blows
I will stand…
Unashamed, naked and exposed
I will stand…
Under the weight of all my foes
I will stand because I know…
I do not stand alone

I will stand…
In the center of my fear
I will stand…
when nothing’s really clear
I will stand…
When all I held so dear
Isn’t really worth as much
As I had thought for years

I will kneel
When I see compassion
And I will kneel
In a Christ like fashion
I will kneel
In humble adoration
Of things that I cannot explain
Like pain in God’s creation

any thoughts on how I should finish this? 



Thursday, September 23, 2010

Church as we know it

The soil of the church as we’ve known it is drying up, and the tree that has grown here is wilting. Its fruits are shriveled. This dry tree will catch fire by a small spark, and in its ashes it will fertilize a new growth. The “church” as we know it has been a church of refugees. A church of people who congregate in a safe place in order to escape the realities of the outside world. The church as we know it has rightly been critiqued as the opiate of the masses, having created grand illusions of a utopian afterlife while ignoring and at times even contributing to the desperate plea of humanities starvation. The church as we know it houses arrogant men who are constantly engaged in pissing matches with one another.

The church as we know it is no church at all.

We were supposed to be a sent people. We were supposed to be, to use a popular analogy, a people of light who run into dark places. Instead, we are a people who amass around a small candle with a bulb for a flame, rubbing our hands together for warmth. And so, as the gospel itself is a paradox (that in surrendering we win, that in death to ourselves we receive life) death to church as we’ve known it will revive us.

No longer will we have to feel guilty because we aren’t in these buildings every time they unlock the doors (which is itself a tragedy). Rather, we will commend the people of God who labor in vocations outside of the church, and invest in their co-workers in the name of Jesus Christ day in and day out. No longer will we exalt the clergymen who have only known church as we know it, seeking to protect a tradition of card houses. Rather our sanctification will come about by ministering to the people whom God loves, not by sleeping through one man’s weekly message. Our sanctification will come by Christian service, not Christian sermons.

The church as we know it is no church at all. It stands (as Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche suggested) as the sepulchers of God: A place where many go to mourn their faith in remembrance of days long since passed, waiting to be beamed up. 

Brothers and sisters, you and I serve a living God. A God who has no sepulcher. A God who may have a tomb, but a tomb that stands empty to remind us that he holds the keys to death and hell. We have a savior who prayed for God’s will to be done on earth as it is in heaven. A time has already come when we will no longer worship the Father in this “church” or that. We are a people who were commanded not simply to come and assemble, but to go and to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor. 

Let the dead bury their own dead, we must follow Jesus.

Note - I believe that there are very few original ideas: Therefore, I have read books by NT Wright, Dean Flemming, Scott McKnight, Reggie McNeal, and Brian McLaren very recently.

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

Culture

I'm not sure who wrote this, but I definitely thought it was worth sharing. More comments to come later:

I am the art in your arthouses, 
the ideas in your institutions, 
the laws in your land, 
the message in your movies,
the thoughts of your teachers,
the values your kids value. 
I affect you.  Do you affect me?
-Culture

Sunday, September 19, 2010

Lessons from "Dead Poets Society"

Much of my time at Biblical Seminary has focused on understanding this debate between Modern and Post-Modern thought. I feel like I’ve come to some good conclusions about it all, but it seems Robin Williams said it better than any of my professors, and he said it twenty-one years ago in “The Dead Poets Society”.


I watched this movie with my wife, Amanda. It was one of those moments where I knew I was seeing something so profound taking place right before my eyes. I thought of my years at Lancaster Bible College, studying “Biblical Hermeneutics” (Interpretation). I thought about the process that I was trained in for understanding the Bible. It very much resembled the process prescribed by “J. Evans Pricher” for understanding poetry. 

1) Learn the method 
2) Apply the method
3) Turn the crank
4) Out comes proper interpretation

This resembles another process that the modern age gave us, the scientific method. Certainly the scientific method is helpful in providing objectivity to research , experiments, and in collecting data, but should a similar process be applied in understanding ancient literature? 

Here in lies the hubris of the modern era. Because a process is implemented, it now becomes possible for me to “objectively” tell those around me that they are wrong because they did not properly employ the method. Also, by articulating and naming the opposing methods of interpretation I am able to “expose their weaknesses”, even if they are methods that have been used for millennia.
We in turn treat the ancient narratives of scripture as a collection of data, by which we create theological constructs. We go to Bible College and Seminary in order to further polish these constructs, so that we can better defend them to those who almost think like we do… but not quite.
All the while, the outside community of the church doesn’t give two squirts of piss about these constructs, these collections of data organized into theological systems. And why should they? If we are spending all of our time defending our constructs, then we have missed the boat. The Gospel is about people, not abstract dogma. May God help us all if we forget that.

Saturday, September 18, 2010

In my previous post, I was asked for some solutions to the dilemma I presented, that is the dependence on a much too focused expression of Christendom without an appreciation for diversity within the parameters of orthodoxy. Since writing that post I have developed a vision for acting on those convictions. I will not dance around the banner under which my proposition falls; I am clearly speaking about ecumenics. I understand that the term conjures many connotations for people, but as I have researched it and studied its key advocates I have little interest in them or their work. What I am proposing may be similar, but I think it is different. I have taken many notes, and there is an evolution to my thought process. Though the journey is one of complexity (at least within my own mind) it has lead me to a very simple conclusion. If you do not want to read about that journey, just skip to the last paragraph.

I started in traditional fashion, being overwhelmed with a conviction and not having the proper avenue to articulate nor communicate the strength with which it burned inside of me. I claimed the creed of liberals who make most evangelicals uncomfortable: “No tolerance for intolerance”. I thought that the first step was identifying an enemy, and my enemy was those who were opposed to my proposition. No sooner did those words enter my notebook did I realize that declaring an enemy who is in opposition to proposed collaborations is seemingly characteristic of the anti-Christ (that is, annihilating all of those who refuse to accept the peace being preached, not literally of course!). This negates the task itself in proposing that those who are my brothers are my enemy. Though the conviction that many of us are bound by schools of thought that have justified racism, classism, sexism, and apathy is counterproductive, the task is to faithfully administer God’s grace amongst our brethren. By seeking to unite the church through debates would be to fight fire with fire, which in this case would only perpetuate an already unfruitful cycle. This process took about thirty seconds in my mind to reject… now that I have silenced angry Ryan, let us continue.

A few days later, a memory came flooding back which took me to the origins of my faith. I penned these words with those memories in the backdrop of my mind. “It is my conviction that ecumenical collaborations are possible, but they are only possible by the manifestation of the Christian faith through CHRISTIAN SERVICE. Such an example would be REACH work-camps. It was there, especially in August of 2005 that I labored alongside a Catholic woman, who loved Jesus and sought Shalom in his name. Must this movement occur among the intellectuals, the pastors and priest in order for it to be realized? I believe so, but though it may start there, the voices of those who follow and love Christ desire unity far more than the division over doctrines they cannot comprehend. This does not entail the calling of people to lay down their traditions and expressions for an unachievable utopist church, as for now we begin with collaboration… grace… peace… and humility in our approach.”

Those words cannot end there, they need a summation. With this evolution of thought, I have come to these final propositions. The church can be united, and it can be united by laboring together in the name of Jesus Christ in our communities. I have seen it, and I’m not calling for it because it pragmatically makes sense, but because I believe that Jesus has been beckoning for the same thing. We have reduced the gospel to nothing more than pie in the sky, bye and bye… I’ve got my golden ticket out of this world and am going to some future hope to live on a cotton ball and strum a harp in some far off reality that has nothing to do with this decaying world (thank you Jim Ehrman and Dr. Michael Kelly for these images). If this caricature fits your theology, than you read a very slim bible. Currently, it has been my desire to attend as many of the churches in Lancaster city, so as to make the priests and pastors familiar with who I am. My goal is to have all of them convene in my house before 2010 is over, so as to discuss the ways in which we might minister as one body to this city. This is an ambitious and large objective, which I believe should I pursue it alone, will not be accomplished. Let us unite and take heed the words of the Apostle Paul:

“As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called— one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.”

It can be done, and though some may desire to squash such ambition with cynicism because of fear, by the grace of God the church, in all of its diversity, might recognize once again her calling.

May the peace of Christ be with you all.

Rethinking Reform

It used to be my desire to start a reformation. I desperately wanted to be a Luther or a Calvin. So I read their sermons, I studied diligently, I debated theology passionately, and I sought to preach the way they did. I wanted to start a movement that would change history for a millennia. Then something changed, it didn’t change overnight… but gradually I began to change. Part of this process of change began when I started taking classes at Biblical seminary; the rest of it I believe came by the Lord’s patients with a rammy twenty something year old who desperately wanted to understand what He was up to and what He wanted of me. Heck, I even wrote a paper called “My 95 thesis”, but as I began to get a better look at the historicity of the reformation, and stopped trying to make a name for myself in Christendom, I began to realize that I as well as my peers were in a great deal of danger with our attitudes and our understanding of history. As my mind is awakened to this realization, I desperately want to kill all evidences of the hubris and division that such thinking created within me and Christ’s church. A further side affect is my desire to want to choke this same thinking out of the minds of my peers so that our generation will not fall into a horrible ignorant snare. Ironically, by wanting to address this by “choking” I only further affirm the arrogance that I seek to avoid. Therefore, I will compose my observations within the frame of my own story and process of growth, so as not to point fingers and accuse, but to accept my lack of understanding and hope that it helps others in their journey.

I suppose that it would be good to simply list what I have in mind so that I do not wander aimlessly in my composition. I despise how arrogant and affirming I was and still can be in my systematized theology. I hate that I proof texted the word of God in order to belittle other believers for their lack of understanding. I hate that I was so focused on speaking the truth that I forgot love. I hate how bound I was in a modernistic expression of the Christian faith, all the while despising without fairly understanding postmodern thought. I hate that I can remember my goal six years ago and see how far from it I have strayed…

I signed up to attend Lancaster Bible College in the summer of 2004. I didn’t own a bible, I couldn’t have found the gospels, or the letters of Paul, or Deuteronomy without first looking in the table of contents. If you would have asked me to find Genesis, I probably would have Googled Phil Collins and played you some of their music. I told a friend “I just want to know about God and his word, and if I have to pay $60,000 to do it, then it’ll be worth it.” I didn’t know anything those days, except that I loved Christ and wanted to understand further the depths of his love for me. I learned so much those four years at LBC, and I am forever grateful for the men and women who invested in me, and the friendships that I cultivated (and for one heluva wife). It was a great four years of growth and change. There was something left over in my theological training however, that I think I could have done without… a chip on my shoulder and false humility in my heart. I don’t blame my education for those things, they existed within me regardless of whatever training I may have received. I now, as I always will, question the system in which I was trained. I have no axe to grind against LBC, and so I must quickly seek to deviate from this road because it is not my intent nor do I desire to speak one bad word against that institution.

I simply desire to say that I at one time sought Christ as a mystery, as a God who exceeded my abilities of comprehension. I sought Christ with humility because he was beyond me. The more I defined God through the system that was handed to me, the more I was able to find an easy answer for deep perplexing questions, the more I cataloged the Bible as a series of truths rather than a historical narrative of the Lord interacting with and redeeming his people and creation, the more I did these thing, the more I “learned”… the less I adored Christ. What need is there to seek Christ when I can define the hypostatic union, kenosis, point to prophesies in the Old Testament of his birth, earthly ministry, sacrificial death, resurrection, and return. I’m thankful that I learned all of these things, but somehow Christ became an object of study rather than my brother, my friend, my savior, my redeemer, my reconciler, my hope. Now that I have officially gone way off of my train of thought, allow me to bring it back home.

I trace this back to how I once understood the reformation and the ways in which it connected with self-centeredness so prevalent in all of us (it’s funny how we talk about the “me” generation, and how self-centered our culture is… yet we forget to pull the log out of our own eyes!). I saw the reformation and Martin Luther in particular as one man who defeated an entire institution. One man against the evils of a corrupt church so powerful that it served as the ultimate end all be all of authority. I believed that Luther broke away from the Catholic Church, and started a legitimate expression of the Christian faith. Luther was one bad dude against impossible odds who brought down the whole system and changed the world… right? I don’t think so. What Luther did and said needed doing and saying, but what he opened the door for has been devastating in the life of the church. Luther was not just one man creating this reform out of thin air. There were plenty of key players and centuries of history which led to this “perfect storm” if you will. The thing that is hard for me to believe is that Luther, in his opposition, did it within the confines of the church. He submitted to its authority, though he spoke what he knew to be true in spite of the consequences. Even until his death, he considered himself to be a Catholic, and was frustrated with many of the second generation reformers such as Zwingli and the Anabaptists who took Luther’s objections and used them to break away from the Church. Luther, Zwingli, Calvin all sought to correct what was clearly an injustice and abuse of power by the Catholic Church. In so doing however, they swung the pendulum and created a foundation for all of our theology, which we now interpret divorced from its context. So for example, when I look at my text book for Church history written by a “prominent” protestant “scholar”, I will find roughly 100 pages devoted to 1500 years of history (most of it covering the second century… and the events and people just prior to the reformation. Anselm, Aquinas, a Kempis are the entire portion of “Medieval Church”), and the other 150 pages devoted to reformation and post reformation. This understanding of church history sets the bar… and the bar is the reformers.

The second half of this problem can be found within my own brokenness as well as a cultural blunder. Part of my desire to climb the Christian latter of importance had to do with my quest for acceptance and approval. As the Lord has begun to heal that wound, I have been able to see many of its unhealthy manifestations. Couple that with the lie that (we) I somehow bought into and you’ve got yourself a problem. For some reason it was impossible for me to be comfortable wherever I was in ministry, because it wasn’t good enough, and the only thing that would ever be good enough was if I could somehow be a Luther or a Calvin. That means that I had to find a problem somewhere, some injustice, some evil, some wrong that I could set right, and I had to find it in the church. I, in my own brokenness and in my own misunderstanding, have exalted myself above the authority of the community of believers in Christ called the church. If Luther were alive to see the division of the body of Christ known as Protestantism/Evangelicalism, he would weep. How quickly we desert and divide our churches because of preferences. Why do we stand with denominational pride in competition with and opposition to our brothers and sisters? Is Christ divided?

Here and now, in this composition, I lay down my desire to be a reformer. I seek only to be like Christ and in so doing become whatever he has for me. Here and now I resolve only to do that which unifies the body, the bride, that our Lord loves and gave himself up for. In so doing I find peace with God, his church, and myself. Will you join me?

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner.

I Lost



I had a friend once
Not too long ago
The only man on earth
Who really seemed to know
The beauty of life
In the midst of deep despair
I had a friend once
The only one who cared

I had a brother once
Not in divine abstraction
A gentle kindred soul
Bound by death’s contraction
He left me scarred and broken
Unable to repair
I had a brother once
The only one who cared

I knew a poet once
Who’s thoughts could not be rivaled
Who could paint a picture with his words
Who’s mind was so unbridled
He taught me more than I can say
Or even could compare
I knew a poet once
The only one who cared

A friend, a brother, a poet
I have lost all three
And now that I have spoken
I’ve lost a part of me
My words cannot express
What my tears want to share
I lost my closest friend
The only one who cared

The Plight

There once was a turd who was good with words
He angered all his peers
His tongue was sharp and his mouth was foul
When he drank a couple beers
He laughed and cried and then defined
All his troublesome years
But no one knew just what to do
When he expressed his fears

For they were just as gripped by things
When he explained his plight
They hid behind their barriers
Protecting years of fright
And even though his words would hurt
They knew that he was right
They’d just as soon dismiss it all
Then put up any fight

So he would take upon himself the grief of all his friends
He wondered why they’d say goodbye
And then the friendship ends
He’d walk alone to his home
And pushed it deep inside
And so it went without relent
Until the day he died