• Archive of "modernity" Category

    Toward a Missional Vision of Theological Education: New Soil

    November 24, 2009 // 12 Comments »

    Previous Posts in this Series:

    Preliminary Thoughts | The Root of the Problem | Fruit of the Problem

    After laying what I consider to be some necessary groundwork for this conversation, I’m excited to begin moving us in a more constructive path of conversation as we try to get at what a missional vision of theological education might entail.

    A missional vision of theological education differs from our current one, not as a reaction to it – the classic pendulum swinging in the other direction sort of thing, but as a completely alternative paradigm.  For the same reasons that megachurches can’t be missional, methods of theological education rooted in Christendom systems of coercive power are not designed to equip missional leaders.  Thus, at least two different kinds of work are needed.

    One, binding up that which is broken and doing what we can to restore it to health.

    And two, planting new trees in new soil.

    To the best of my knowledge, in the first instance, centers of theological education are…

    1) Making missional adaptations to their curriculum: offering courses in missional hermeneutics, missional ecclesiology, missional theology, etc.

    2) Offering more creative program options: utilizing online methods of delivery, developing intensive based courses, moving to cohort-based programs, etc.

    3) Trying harder to actually partner with local churches to offer students more opportunity for in-service learning.

    These are all good, helpful, and necessary changes within the current system.  We need to see more and more schools moving in these directions.

    But.  These remain changes within a system that I am saying is flawed at its roots.  It’s kind of like painting the walls, fixing the plumbing, and replacing the electrical systems in a house that has been irreparably eaten by termites.  You may as well do what you can as long as the house is standing, but if you’re not also working on building yourself a new house, you’re gonna be in trouble.

    This leads us to the second sort of work that needs to be done, not so much mending, but tilling and planting.  To use biblical metaphors, I think of it in terms of wineskins (Lk. 5:36-38) and kernels of wheat (Jn. 12:23-25).  Now is not a time for repairing old wineskins, now is a time for new wineskins and new wine.  To go further, our current system of theological education (not unlike the dominant expression of church in the West) has a God-ordained opportunity to count its loss as gain in Christ.  If they would only spend themselves fully on behalf of those that are coming after by being wiling to die rather than move into survival mode at all cost (a patently un-Christian stance for sure), what an explosion of Kingdom power we might see!

    Whether this happens or not remains to be seen, but as we move toward a missional vision of theological education, I suggest that it will be marked by the following:

    1) Community Rootedness*

    2) Character Formation

    3) Conviction Shaping

    4) Contextual Training

    5) Cross-Cultural Pioneering

    In the coming weeks, I hope to deal with each one of these in turn.  I’m anxious for your comments and insights on this and future posts.

    *I changed this from Communal Discernment to Community Rootedness as a more encompassing term.

    Posted in christendom, church, community, culture, discipleship, kingdom, leadership, missional, modernity, spiritual formation, theological education, theology, western culture

    Toward a Missional Vision of Theological Education: The Fruit of the Problem

    November 17, 2009 // 6 Comments »

    Previous Posts in this Series:

    Preliminary Thoughts | The Root of the Problem

    In my last post I made the claim that our current model of theological education, in assuming a Christendom context, is better-suited to train managers of Christian religious institutions than it is to prepare missional leaders.  If the root of the problem is Christendom, the binding of Christian witness and mission to systems of coercive power, we do well to ask what the fruit of the tree of our current system of theological education has been?

    The version of Christianity which is bound to systems of coercive power within modernity has been powerless to resist the trajectory of that era.  Thus, features like individualism, consumerism, and reductionism have been uncritically adopted by local churches and systems of theological education alike and have had mutually related effects.  On top of this, there has emerged a rift between theological education and the ministry of the local church.

    I’ve talked up a storm on this blog about what this has meant for the structure and ministry of local churches, but what about our systems of theological education?

    Individualism.

    For the most part, people make individual decisions to attend seminary and they are trained as individuals.  I’m not saying you can’t experience community in seminary education or benefit from peer interaction, but largely, you choose your courses as an individual, study as an individual, get assessed as an individual, and then decide where to go and what to do as an individual.  Not very good training for people who will then go on to be part of a staff team!  Even less conducive to a truly missional ecclesiology in which the theology, spiritual practices, and Christan life are all rooted in community.

    Consumerism.

    Seminary is freaking expensive!  I know I got some amen’s on that!  That’s because there’s a market for it.  Think about that for a second… There is a market (a system of coercive power if there ever was one) for being trained as a Christian leader.  Now, make sure you’re not hearing what I’m NOT saying.  I’m not saying it’s wrong for people to earn a living from educating others.  Nor am I saying that buying and selling is in and of itself a bad thing.  I am saying that this business of people needing to spend (or worse, go into debt) huge amounts of money to get a religious credential at an accredited institution is not only unsustainable as Christendom unravels, but has a negative effect on Christian leaders and those they lead.

    Reductionism.

    There are a number of ways we could go with this dimension of modern Christendom, but what concerns me the most is how we have reduced theology to information and the leadership of local churches to those best able to convey it.  How else are we able to account for a theological system so heavily slanted toward lecturing, book reading, writing, and testing?  It’s nearly all about the grasping and repeating of concepts.  I’m not saying at all that there’s no place for this, but this feature of Christendom-based theological education has resulted in a form of Christianity that lives as though it’s possible to really believe something without embodying it.  The Bible knows nothing of disembodied belief, but this is the very thing that our current system of theological eduction allows for.

    These are a few of the most obvious fruits of theological education rooted in Christendom that I am thinking of.  Are you thinking of more?  What are the angles and nuances that you see from your perspective that I’m missing?

    In my next post, I aim to take a stab how a missional vision of theological education differs from one rooted in Christendom.

    Posted in christendom, church, community, consumerism, culture, discipleship, individualism, leadership, missional, modernity, reductionism, spiritual formation, sustainability, theological education, theology, western culture

    Toward A Missional Vision of Theological Education: The Root of the Problem

    November 13, 2009 // 13 Comments »

    Previous Posts in this Series:

    Preliminary Thoughts | The Root of the Problem

    There is one sure fire way to undermine the character of Christian witness and mission – bind them to systems of coercive power. To the great detriment of the Body of Christ, this is precisely what has happened in the cultural phenomenon of Christendom.

    christendom

    To understand what this has to do with theological education, we must first see what it has to do with the Church out of which our current system of theological education was born.

    The dominant expression of Christianity in the West takes Christendom for granted.  We expect the average person to have familiarity, if not empathy, with Judeo-Christian morals and values.  We vie for our government to embrace and enforce Christian sentiments and practices.  We expect “going to church” to be received by others as a vitally, if not at least potentially, important thing to do.  We operate out of the assumption that our biggest problem is getting people to believe the right thing in the intellectual sense.  All of these expectations stem from Christendom as a social power structure within modernity and they have served to (mis)shape the Church as we know it.

    It is from this sort of Church history that our institutions of theological education have grown.  They are Christendom-shaped feeder systems for Christendom-shaped churches.  Assuming the centrality of Christianity in the broader culture, students are educated more as managers than missionaries.  Managers and missionaries are two different sorts of leaders.  Whereas managerial leadership is predicated on positional power marked by knowing more than others, missional leadership is predicated on Christlike character, marked by holistic discipleship.  Thus, the ultimate problem with our current system of theological education is that it is not designed to make holistic disciples.

    Discipleship is a life-long battle of allegiances.  For the missional church and for a missional vision of theological education, the battle is largely between Christendom, attempting to use systems of coercive power for good, and participation in the Missio Dei, a way marked by humble obedience, uncomfortable faithfulness, and hope in the midst of death.

    Like the ring from Lord of the Rings, many well intentioned Christians have sought to use Christendom for good, but it doesn’t work like that.  Without doing irrevocable damage to what it means to be a disciple, we can’t use systems of coercive power for good.  They are firmly and always in opposition and this is why trying to cultivate missional leaders inside of Christendom-shaped systems is a lot like trying to drink ocean water to quench your thirst.  The thing you need is there, but there is something which permeates it that ends up having the opposite effect.

    Like the wizard Gandalf refusing to take and use the “ring of power,” or Jesus refusing Satan’s offers to achieve his purpose in more convenient ways, missional churches do well to resist the temptation of leveraging the powers of Christendom ideals and systems to achieve their goals.  Though they would have the best of intentions, they know and submit themselves to the truth that there is no shortcut.

    That being the case, missional churches require different sorts of leaders – those shaped more by a missional vision of theological education than a Christendom one.

    In my next post, as a way of moving us toward this missional vision, I want to make some observations on what the fruit of this sort of Christendom-rooted system has been.  But for now, what do you have to add to this?  Where would you push back?

    Posted in christendom, church, leadership, missional, modernity, spiritual formation, theological education, theology

    The Power & Promise of Regional Gatherings for the Equipping of Missional Churches

    October 20, 2009 // 11 Comments »

    A bit of background to this post…

    I used to want to be the next Rick Warren or Bill Hybels.  What student pastor in the late 90′s didn’t?  As I look back, my misaligned, youthful arrogance was fueled in large part by the national conferences I was attending.  Predicated on the modern notion that bigger is always better, these conferences communicated and celebrated the paradoxical and lamentable reality of “Christian celebrity.”

    These conferences sprang up from and in turn sought to facilitate the modern megachurch phenomenon.  And, in my opinion, did/do more harm than good.  In the Christian world, when it comes to conferences, the national variety tends to capitalize on the “cool factor,” something that seems grossly out of place to me now for those who follow a crucified Savior.

    At national conferences there are typically big name speakers, higher attendance and more bells and whistles.  (Maybe even a dude jumping into a foot of water from 35 feet up?)  National conferences, at least the better ones, can have value for inspiring people I suppose, but I would venture to say that regional gatherings possess far more power and value in terms of their ability to help shape and equip the church and her leaders.  Here’s just a few reasons why I say that.

    • Relationships are more easily cultivated and sustained
    • With greater ease and interest, topics of conversation move from the theoretical to the practical
    • Traveling costs are much lower
    • Conference costs are much lower (if not free like Verge LA which my friend JR Woodward (@dreamawakener) is helping to put together
    • Conversations regarding context and culture gain more immediate traction
    • The loss of the “cool factor” translates into a higher caliber of fellow attenders
    • Virtually everyone gets to participate in meaningful ways
    • There is greater access to gifted people who would probably never get invited to present at a national gathering because they are w/o book deals and cult followings
    • There is no hype to distract from the more important issues being addressed
    • Young and impressionable leaders aren’t made to feel inadequate or handed delusions of grandeur

    For these reasons and still others, I am hopeful that we will see more and more groups who exist to strengthen the missional church and her leaders investing in regional gatherings.  And where and when national gatherings continue, my hope is that they will focus on supporting regional networks, leaving the hype behind.

    Posted in church, conference, leadership, missional, modernity, networking, preaching/teaching, stewardship, sustainability, western culture

    Cultural Gravity (Part 2)

    August 5, 2009 // 7 Comments »

    In my last post, I tried to unpack a basic understanding of what I was calling cultural gravity and said that I wanted to offer a few thoughts on what this has to do with missional churches.

    In general my thoughts flow from the main idea that missional churches are those whose basic ecclesiology and structure are predicated on the reality of cultural gravity.  To say it another way, given the post-Christendom framework of missional churches, they tend to think of “Christianity” & “church” not as a part of culture, but rather as an alternative culture. This being the case, missional churches…

    1. emphasize spiritual formation.    Sin is never the result of simple and immediate decisions – it grows out of the experiences, paradigms, and structures that make up the worlds we live in.  The cosmic significance of Jesus’ death and resurrection notwithstanding, sin is most powerfully overcome not by making individual decisions, but in faithful devotion to the way of Jesus – the entrance into a new world of cultural gravity.

    2. are inherently incarnational. There are those who would maintain that the church should be both attractional and missional.  If they are really astute they attempt to correlate this to the biblical notions of centripetal mission (the world being attracted to the people of God) and centrifugal mission (the people of God going forth in the world embodying and proclaiming the gospel) – thereby causing all those who deeply care about the true nature of missional ecclesiology to cringe, tear there clothes, and gnash their teeth for 2 reasons.

    A) Attractional churches are not practicing centripetal mission.  Mimicking culture and slapping a Christian label on it, pandering to the wants and whims of a chosen demographic, making people as comfortable as possible so that they can “hear and respond to the gospel,” etc. are not examples of centripetal  mission, but they are nearly universal practices of those who seek to defend attractional approaches to ecclesiology and mission.

    The centripetal mission spoken of in Scripture has to do with God so blessing his people for their covenant faithfulness that others take note and want to participate.

    B) Being missional is not a counterpart to being attractional.  It’s not a tactic.  We don’t seek to be attractional to effectively reach one segment of the population and missional to reach another.  To be missional is much deeper, more inclusive, and theologically holistic than this pop understanding.

    The centrifugal mission spoken of in Scripture has to do with the people of God seeking to love and bless the world around them – to bring light where there in darkness, healing where there is brokenness, and peace where there is discord.

    Centripetal and centrifugal mission are not two things to be held together in a both/and sort of way.  They are two effects of a sole commitment to being incarnationally faithful to participating in the Missio Dei.

    What has all this to do with cultural gravity?  Missional churches seek to embody a cultural gravity predicated on a biblical vision of God’s Kingdom that emanates out as it transforms peoples lives.

    3. have an affinity for multi-culturalism.  Having an understanding of and appreciation for cultural gravity is not threatening to missional churches, but embraced as an opportunity for growth and even conversion.  Missional churches find mono-culturalism unfortunate, limiting, and generally boring.  They will seek to be as cross-cultural as possible given their context and will do what they can to facilitate cross-cultural experiences as a vital aspect of spiritual formation.

    Just a few thoughts on the matter.  More than open for additions, clarifications, or push-back.

    Posted in christendom, church, culture, missional, modernity, spiritual formation, theology

    Equippers as Environmentalists

    February 20, 2009 // No Comments »

    My friend JR (great name right?!) Woodward has recently finished up a series of blog posts on “Equippers as Environmentalists: Re-Imagining Leadership in Today’s Western Church.”  I have been following it all along and sharing each post thought my shared feeds so I hope other have been catching it.  In case you haven’t, he has provided a summary post with an outline of each individual post.

    His thesis is that

    …if the church is to faithfully rebirth herself in the Western context and cultivate a fruitful missional ethos, she must awaken the five equippers to live as environmentalists instead of master programmers.

    As one vitally concerned about the state and future of the Western church as we experience the move from Modernity to Postmodernity and Christendom to Post-Christendom, I am despearte for us to embrace this season of cultural transition as an opportunity to reconsider and rediscover the nature of the church, which is precisely what JR sets out to do.  Leadership, of course, is a major piece of that puzzle and JR has some great stuff to say on the topic.  Hope you’ll head over there and give it a read.  He is also planning on posting it in pdf form soon in his writings page.

    Posted in church, leadership, missional, modernity, postmodernity, western culture

    « Previous Entries
    Next Entries »