• Archive of "corporate worship" Category

    The Arrogance of Christendom Theology

    September 29, 2010 // 8 Comments »

    Though I love the words of my friend Jason Coker in his parable, “The Death Rattle of Christendom,” Dave Fitch is right in saying that, “Christendom Ain’t Done Yet.”  But man oh man, I for one wish it would hurry up and die already so that we can stop having these painfully ridiculous arguments!

    Do you catch the underlying assumptions in this conversation?

    – Where there is talk of missiology, it’s church growth, and not God’s Kingdom mission that takes center stage.

    – Where there is talk of ecclesiology, it’s the (male) preacher/act of teaching, and not the call on a community to make disciples that takes center stage.

    These are both hallmarks of a Christian system which thrives on the power and privilege afforded it by Christendom.  But I say, “woe to us” when we think that leveraging the kind of “influence” that is talked about here has anything to do with what God would have us be about.

    Mega and Multi-Site (thinking here of the video venue sort) churches, “work,” on account of our infatuation with celebrity and our predisposition to the passive consumption of information.

    We must, must, must ruthlessly rip out of our heads the notion that our supposed giftedness gives us license to build our own personal church-kingdoms around it/us.

    Christendom is not a neutral cultural condition, it perverts and distorts and the theology which under-girds this conversation is evidence of it. With no regard for the way in which the message we mean to impart is always embodied in the medium through which it is communicated, we are destined to continually miss the whole point of Jesus’ call to make disciples whose lives are consumed by a desire to fully participate in God’s mission in the world.

    And let’s lay aside the distorted paradigm in which this conversation is even taking place for a minute.  Is anyone else concerned about the stark distinction between the ways in which Driscoll and MacDonald come across and carry themselves when compared to Dever.  I don’t know a ton about Dever, but his humility in contrast to the arrogance of Driscoll and MacDonald is evidence enough that what he has to say is bound to be more meaningful.

    I watch stuff like this and I wonder to myself, “What will become of us when our power and privilege is stripped away?  What happens when there aren’t enough church-goers to shuffle around and we lose the illusion of all the influence we once believe we had?”

    Posted in christendom, consumerism, corporate worship, culture, discipleship, post-christendom, preaching/teaching, spiritual formation, theology, video

    Missional Preaching Part 3: Preaching as a Call for Response

    February 21, 2010 // 8 Comments »

    This is the third and final post in a brief series on the practice of preaching in missional communities.  I’ve already argued that preaching in missional churches is a communal activity and that it aims at the proclamation of biblical truth.  Lastly, I want to suggest that missional preaching calls for and invites a real response from its hearers.

    It is a travesty of (quite literally) biblical proportions that we would gather as the Body of Christ, hear from the Scriptures, and not be called – in a meaningful and accountable way – to respond. This is where the theological rubber meets the ecclesial road.  When the theological vision of a church is adapted to meet an individualistic and consumer-driven society, the practice of preaching is bound to the fate illustrated by the cartoon above.  However, where and when a church embraces a missional theology, it sees little point in the practice of preaching if it doesn’t lead to a meaningful and accountable means of response. By this I don’t mean that we have some nugget of wisdom to try and apply to our lives once we leave, I mean right then and there, we respond.  All of us.  Not, “Respond if you want to get saved,” but “Here’s God’s truth for all of us to which we are all called to respond.  Do it!

    Typically, at Life on the Vine, we do this through spoken prayer.  The preacher will guide us in a way to respond to the truth and everyone has an opportunity to do so.  For instance, this summer I preached from Genesis 49 and proclaimed the truth that, “Our hope in the promises of God rests on God’s character, not ours.  We all responded to this by praying, “Lord, though I am/have _________, you are/have ___________ and so I pray, __________.”  Those who pray conclude with the words, “Lord, in your mercy,” and the entire congregation, if they can, affirms the prayer by saying, “Amen!”

    Because our community is an accessible and sustainable size, these responses are quite public, making them all the more meaningful.

    Responding to the truth of the text for the morning doesn’t end on Sunday.  At the center of our community are what we call “Missional Orders,” groups of couples and singles who are trying to share life and serve together.  These missional orders carry the truth with them throughout the week and when we gather we continue to respond to one another by noting the effect the sermon is having on us.

    Any thoughts on this?  Are there aspects to the way preaching is practices in your church community that get at this vision or embody something different?  Are there implications of a missional theology/ecclesiology for preaching that you’re thinking of that I haven’t mentioned here?

    Posted in church, community, corporate worship, liturgy, LOV, post-christendom, preaching/teaching, theology

    Missional Preaching Part 2: Preaching as the Proclamation of Biblical Truth

    February 12, 2010 // No Comments »

    In my last post I was making the claim that given a missional ecclesiology, the practice of preaching is a communal activity.  On top of this, I would like to suggest that preaching in missional churches seeks to proclaim biblical truth.

    Now, don’t miss this. I don’t mean “proclaim biblical truth” in the fundamentalist, “The Bible says it, so that’s the end of discussion and you’re stupid if you don’t see it” sort of way that’s maddeningly common, but in the, “In faith, we proclaim this to be true about God and life in God’s Kingdom,” sort of way.

    Because missional churches seek to shape a people for mission in a Post-Christendom world, every activity of the community, including preaching, is meant to be a formative practice in this regard.  As Stutzman says in the paper mentioned previously,

    Missional preaching deliberately draws contrasts between the gospel message and the practices and values of American civil religion, aiming for conversion from habits shaped by participation in American democracy to habits formed through Christian discipleship.

    In preaching, missional churches seek to proclaim the truth of the reality of God’s Kingdom in the midst of every other competing reality.  The point of preaching for missional churches is not anthropocentric/therapeutic - meant to make people feel emotionally better.  Nor does it seek primarily to be relevant in order to captivate or entertain an audience.  It is not even so concerned with being exegetical or expository – patently cerebral types of communication.  Missional preaching is theocentric – it is a practice in which we look for God’s reality to intersect with ours and DO something in us and in our midst.

    So, for instance, each and every sermon preached at Life on the Vine features a rhetorical phrase of some sort.  This is a simple way to articulate the truth that is being proclaimed from the morning’s text.  The rest of the sermon, normally about 20-25 minutes since it’s not seen as more central than any other part of the liturgy, is spent, not unpacking a text, but proclaiming a biblical truth from that text that addresses us and calls us all to some response.

    For instance, this summer I preached from Genesis 49 and proclaimed the truth that,

    Our hope in the promises of God rests on God’s character, not ours.

    The aim in my preaching of this sermon wasn’t mainly to explain the text so that people could understand and try to apply it to their lives, but to proclaim the truthfulness of the text by calling out what it was DOING, namely, calling its hearers to believe, not believe by intellectual assent, but believe by ordering their lives around, this biblical truth.

    And the only way to get at this, is to call for a real response.  That’s our topic for next time.

    Posted in church, community, corporate worship, liturgy, LOV, missional, post-christendom, preaching/teaching, theology, truth

    Missional Preaching Part 1: Preaching as a Communal Activity

    February 9, 2010 // 10 Comments »

    Not too long ago I offered a post on, “Preaching in the Missional Church.”  Basically it was an excuse to pimp this awesome paper by Ervin Stutzman.  Apparently that wasn’t enough for my good friend Wess, who asked what missional preaching looks like ;)

    To try and do justice to Wess’ question, the importance of the topic and to make space for better discussion, I’ve decided to divy this up into three posts.  I’ve got in mind to describe three unique attributes of preaching in missional churches and then illustrating them by way of examples from Life on the Vine, the missional community Amy and I are a part of. (Dave Fitch, one of the co-pastors of LOV, offers some reflections on this same topic here.)

    In missional communities, preaching is a communal activity which seeks to proclaim biblical truth that calls for and invites a real response.

    In most churches, the task of preaching is the responsibility of one individual – 9 times out of 10, a man.  Not only does the task of preaching often remain unshared, but the scope of preaching does as well.  This reality conflicts with the communal nature of missional theology and ecclesiology.

    In missional communities, one of the central aims would be for a team of teachers, whose giftedness is affirmed by the congregation, to share responsibility not only for preaching and teaching, but for giving their time and attention to identifying and equipping other gifted teachers in the body.

    Life on the Vine is shepherded by a 3-person team of bi-vocational pastors.  Not only do they share teaching and preaching responsibilities, but they also facilitate what we call a “College of Preachers,” every summer.  This gives those who have (or at least want to discover if they have) the gift of teaching, the opportunity to use and explore this gift in a guided way.

    In addition, we follow the church calendar.  This means that we are all aware, well ahead of time, of those texts which will be preached each Sunday.  Whoever is responsible for the preaching portion of our liturgical service also facilitates a time of teaching and dialogue for an hour or so before the worship service.  This time gives the entire body the opportunity to speak to the text for the morning and it gives the preacher the opportunity to (re)shape their sermon in light of the insights, questions, and concerns of the body.

    I’ll speak to the issue of missional preaching proclaiming biblical truth next time.  For now, what are your thoughts on preaching as a communal activity?  Is this important to you?  Why or why not?  What might be other ways to achieve the same goal in different ways?

    Posted in church, community, corporate worship, liturgy, LOV, missional, post-christendom, preaching/teaching, theology, truth

    Attractional/Missional: From Pragmatics to Formation

    December 18, 2008 // 8 Comments »

    Beginning with Dan Kimball’s “Missional Misgivings,” there has been a recent flurry of discussion over the whole missional/attractional thing in the blog-o-sphere.  Responses by Hirsch here, Cole here, Fitch here.

    A good bit of what is being said in response to the topic (much by patently reformed folks) has to do with “cultural appropriateness.”  Some seem to be suggesting that the seeker-sensitive/mega-church model of the church was a culturally appropriate model within Christendom and in a modern framework.  By implication, this would then be the preferred model of church for areas which still fit this description.  There is also an addition to the discussion pertaining to models for preaching and gathering.  Again, the argument seems to be that we need to allow the culture to determine the right model.  I submit that this the wrong approach to this discussion.  It may appear to be an incarnational approach, but it is anything but.

    My friend Sam reminded me of a quote by Lesslie Newbigin recently,

    …if we begin with culture we are never taken back to gospel, if we begin with gospel, we ourselves are transformed and enter into culture to put flesh on the gospel.

    This is the way we need to understand what it means to be incarnational – gospeling a culture, not culturizing the gospel.

    The primary question church leaders need to always be asking is not, “What is the culturally appropriate way to be the church?” but “What is the most formational way to be the church?” The first question lends itself to our ingrained consumeristic tendencies and begets attractional churches; the second invites us to consider a different goal altogether and serves to cultivate missional communities.

    We ought to always do what we do as the church specifically because it helps people to become more like Jesus. Willowcreek was probably the best example ever of a church that did everything right in terms of cultural appropriateness only to announce to the world how horribly they had failed to actually help people become disciples (my thoughts on their REVEAL study here and Fitch’s here).

    I hope this makes sense.  It is not my intention to question the motives and hearts of my well-intentioned brothers and sisters, but I beleive this to be a pivotal conversation for the future of the Church in the West and when the questions we seem to be asking have more to do with cultural pragmatics than faithful formation, I get nervous.

    Let me end with a quick story.  I recently attended a church planting conference where a supposedly “missional” church planter told those in attendance,

    …the south is home to some of the greatest preachers in the world.  If you are not a great preacher or teacher, you have no business trying to plant a church in the south.

    I can’t even dream up a better illustration of what it means to so completely miss the point of everything missional is about.  For this guy, it’s the culture, not the gospel that determines what you do, how you do it, and who exactly it is that does it.  I just don’t think this is the best way forward for us.

    Posted in christendom, church, conference, consumerism, corporate worship, culture, discipleship, gospel, Jesus, missional, modernity, preaching/teaching, questions, spiritual formation, stories, western culture

    A Word on Liturgy

    September 19, 2008 // 5 Comments »

    Quote from Christianity Today article, “A Deeper Relevance“…

    It is precisely the point of the liturgy to take people out of their worlds and usher them into a strange, new world—to show them that, despite appearances, the last thing in the world they need is more of the world out of which they’ve come. The world the liturgy reveals does not seem relevant at first glance, but it turns out that the world it reveals is more real than the one we inhabit day by day.

    This statement about liturgy, a term we could easily replace with, “corporate worship,” is perhaps a perfect remedy to arguments we so often hear over cultural relevance.  Churches who seek to be “culturally relevant” in their worship (as opposed to incarnational in their lives and witness) have flipped the gospel on its head by beginning with the world the gospel addresses rather than the world the gospel call us to.  This is a call for the corporate worship gathering to be first and foremost a means of formation and discipleship for those who comprise the body of Christ as followers of Jesus.

    Posted in corporate worship, discipleship, liturgy, spiritual formation