Read This Book

One of my first on-ramps into missional thinking was Reggie McNeal's book The Present Future - Six Tough Questions for the Church (http://www.amazon.com/Present-Future-Tough-Questions-Church/dp/0787965685). I was blown away by the candor and honesty of

of the questions McNeal was asking and found that they helped articulate my own

struggles and questions. Unlike many books being published around

the same time The Present Future was practical and helpful while being

challenging and provocative.

McNeal's new book, Missional Renaissance, is another fine example of a practical book that is as helpful as it is challenging and critical. The subtitle summarizes the guts of the book: Changing the Scorecard for the CHURCH. McNeal is attempting to provide new metrics for measuring church health. Personally, I believe this is the most important "next step" for the missional process to take. The missional concept is out there - people are aware of the missional dialog (much of which began with the emerging church dialog) - and there are several examples of churches wrestling with how to course correct in light what God is saying and doing through this powerful movement. Creating new measurements for the local church is critical if we are to hold the course and not fall back into old patterns which yield old outcomes.

One of the shifts McNeal proposes in his book is that the church move from destination to connector. "The church is a connector, linking people to the kingdom life that God has for them. When the church thinks it's the destination, it confuses the scorecard and keeps people away from their true destination - LIFE." I love this simple language and practical perspective. The church is not the end...it is a means to an end. Church leaders should figure out how to measure the end so that we understand the role and function of the church in achieving that larger outcome. What is it that matters MORE than the growth of our local church? Is there anything else more important?

Read this book.

If you are deep into the missional dialog you will appreciate Reggie's comprehensive look at the movement and the practical ways he seeks to create new metrics. If you are new to the conversation, I can't imagine a better book to help get you up to speed.

Does Doctrine Get in the Way?

Doctrine (Latin: doctrina) is a codification of beliefs or "a body of teachings" or "instructions", taught principles or positions, as the body of teachings in a branch of knowledge or belief system. The Greek analogy is the etymology of catechism.

I believe doctrine is important. Thoughtful biblical doctrine is a necessary aspect of true wisdom and authentic faith. The content of our faith is as important as the sincerity of our faith because good intentions alone are not sufficient.

BUT (and there's always a but)

I'm concerned that doctrine often gets in the way; In the way of God at work, in the way of our witness, in the way of our worship, and in the way of our experience of God. Here is my thinking:

• Evangelical, Anglican, Presbyterian, Baptist....any follower of Jesus will likely be part of an institution/structure that brings with it rules, perspectives, thoughts on God and Sacraments. Just ask a Presbyterian to baptize you as an adult if you were already baptized as an infant...and you'll see what I mean. Our "books of order" and regulations are most often attempts to turn biblical gray into black and white.
• I believe we are prone to legalism and our attempts at being faithful to doctrine can lead us into a bondage that is more human than divine.
• Theology is a living thing - maturing, changing, and evolving. Doctrine, like institutions, seek to be fixed and firmly rooted; unchangeable and persevering.
• Our ability to interface with those outside our faith is seriously damaged when our doctrinal concerns surpass our kingdom concerns.

Maybe I'm too liberal for my own good. I mean.... I understand that WHO Jesus is matters. He isn't simply a great teacher alone....He is the Son of God. But the more I look at the Gospels, the more I see Jesus sending his disciples out to engage their world in ministry with little doctrinal preparation. I suppose I trust Jesus to reach out to people that are earnestly seeking him....even if they are in some questionable places as far as doctrine is concerned. Am I crazy?? Am I moving in the direction of a heretic?

A New Script

Walter Bruggemann is a theologian I'm currently knee-deep into. He has an over-arching premise regarding the role of ministry in society/culture that I've been wrestling with. He lays this out over 19 points but I'll summarize it for you in 4:

• Everyone lives by a script and we are socialized into that script and it is outside our control.

• The dominant script in America is "technological - therapeutic - military - consumerism" and it makes failed promises of happiness and safety.

• It is the task of ministry to de-script that script and present an alternative script whose key character is the irascible, illusive, and sovereign Triune God.

• Since most of society is ambivalent and ambiguous about this script, ministry is to also manage that ambivalence in faithful ways through preaching, liturgy, social action, education, justice, and good neighboring of all kinds.

For me, this is really helpful in illuminating the tensions that I often feel regarding church and culture. There are competing and differing scripts at war with one-another....and that war plays out throughout culture. And that war has little to do with "worship style preference" or "quality of our church campus" and everything to do with how followers of Jesus choose to live.

This is how I now see the "principalities and powers" that we, as followers of Jesus, fight against.

They aren't (usually) overt and explicit expressions of evil...but subtle choices to live according to a new narrative - a new script.....and that is TOUGH - full of TENSION - and ultimately demands us to trade in our sensibilities for a life of risk that is radical, provocative, and unsafe.

Jackson & Fawcett:

Pop culture lost two significant icons this past week. Michael Jackson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_jackson) and Farrah Fawcett (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farrah_Fawcett) have each left a legacy behind them that anyone above the age of 20 understands (to some degree).

I've heard quite a bit of chatter attempting to mitigate our nation's focus on these two iconoclasts. For many, our nation's mourning the loss of these pop-culture figures is a demonstration of shallowness. Surely there are better lives to remember; bigger situations that should command our attention; more compelling news to follow.

Of course that is true. I don't know anyone that would say Michael Jackson's death is as important as Iran's current political struggles...but yet they find themselves going through a sort of grieving...a sense of loss. Charlie's Angels wasn't even a good TV show....and yet Farrah Fawcett is deeply missed and grieved.

I think the grief and sense of loss is over the era and emotions that they represent. I'm 37 and grew up listening to M. Jackson and watching (sometimes) Charlie's Angels. When I remember those years - I realize just how old I am...how much the world has changed.....how much I over-romanticize the "good-old-days." It can become easy to get sucked into an emotional catharsis comparing then to now...longing for days gone by.

There is some good learning here on many levels.

1. We are all people who live in and through culture. Culture permeates our existence like air in our lungs. We have no choice - it simply is.
2. We all have markers - totem poles - memories that effectively embody or capture what that particular time was about.
3. Those markers take on an almost mythological value because of all they represent.
4. When our icons, markers, totems, etc... leave us (death, decay, change, etc..) we grieve the loss of what was....the familiar......security.

The poem I posted earlier asks God to "re-brand" us in Him. I like that idea. Not that brands are bad...or celebrities bad....but that we who follow Jesus are to be identified by something deeper and more profound than our "love and/or connection" to Princess Di, Michael Jackson, or all that they represent.

We operate in culture and I love it. We also live according to a reality that is separate from our ever-changing culture. We are in this world but not of this world.....

Re-Brand Us

Amazing poem by Walter Bruggemann....my latest-greatest-theologian-super-hero.

Wanted to share it with you.

You mark us with water,

You scar us with your name,

You brand us with your vision,

and we ponder our baptism, your water,

your name,

your vision.

While we ponder, we are otherwise branded.

Our imagination is consumed by other brands,

- winning with Nike,

- pausing with Coca-Cola,

- knowing and controlling with Microsoft.

Re-brand us,

transform our minds,

renew our imagination,

that we may be more fully who we are marked

and hoped to be,

we pray with candor and courage. Amen.

"the world"

Today I was listening to christian talk radio. This is more "duty" than "delight" to be sure, but something I feel compelled to do on occasion so I'm informed and lucid regarding mainstream - non-denominational - evangelical - dispensational thinking.

The host made this statement (and others like it) several times:

"the world is boring BUT Jesus is exciting." "the world is bad BUT Jesus (Jay-zzzusss) is good." "the world is dark BUT Jesus brings the light."

I don't get this thinking.

Who and What is the world and why is it boring, bad, and dark?

Is the world that scary place outside the church?

Is it where they show R-rated movies and serve hard liquor?

Is it where Korn and Boy George sing?

Seriously - can someone tell me what "the world" means and why we posture it as an antithetical to Jesus?

I continually find this sort of dualism in popular evangelical teaching. The idea that there is a sacred (Jesus) and a secular (the world) and we can lump just about whatever we want in any direction and make a case as to why it should be there. CCM is sacred because they sing about Jesus. Shawn Colvin is secular because she dropped the F-bomb in a song. Sacred = good Secular = bad.

I reject such thinking.

As it pertains to art, there is art that stirs you and art that doesn't. There is music played well and music played poorly. There is solid songwriting and there is crap songwriting.

I find Jesus in beauty - period.

Regardless of the artist's intention, motive, lifestyle, etc.... Jesus can indwell, work, and move through anything "the world" has to offer.

I want to integrate my life - not segregate it. I want to be surprised at the far-reaching power of Jesus - not limit Him to places where I find the christian fish symbol. I want to live in the world and take advantage of ALL it has to offer - not hide from it by calling it "secular."

Am I less of a follower of Jesus for this?

Certitude:

I love theologian Walter Bruggemann. While I don't always agree with everything he says, he's so clear and pragmatic about his perspective that I find great challenge and clarity in his words. Here is a quote from a lecture he gave in 2004

"We all have a hunger for certitude. The problem is that the gospel is not about certitude but about fidelity. There really isn't ever enough certitude to make us happy or safe enough. We are invited to the way of the cross - not the way of happiness and certainty."

This was in response to a question about certainty and truth. I love that he introduces fidelity into the truth conversation. We're so hung up on truth; absolute - narrative - meta-narrative - etc... Fidelity changes the playing field and introduces a new metric as supreme over the truth debate.

It's rather convicting.

Am I living in fidelity to God and the Kingdom He's called me to embrace?

Am I allowing God's meta-narrative to challenge and inform my daily decisions?

Am I so hung up on truth and certainty about God that it becomes a distraction from the relationship that God invites me to live - one that contains a cross as much as a crown?