The guys over at Homebrewed Christianity recently posted an interview they did with N.T. Wright.  The interview was full of some really great sound bytes that I went ahead and divvied up to make your life easier

You can listen to or download the interview in its entirety here.

On being a bishop. Download audio file (wrightbishop.mp3)

On the unfortunate split between church and academy. Download audio file (wrightpastorwriter.mp3)

On returning to fulltime academic work. Download audio file (wrightteacher.mp3)

On Bart Ehrman. Download audio file (wrightbartehrman.mp3)

On John Shelby Spong. Download audio file (wrightspong.mp3)

On Luke Timothy Johnson. Download audio file (wrightjohnson.mp3)

On Marcus Borg & John Dominic Crossan. Download audio file (wrightborgcrossan.mp3)

On Jurgen Moltmann. Download audio file (wrightmoltmann.mp3)

On E.P. Sanders. Download audio file (wrightsanders.mp3)

On Karl Barth. Download audio file (wrightbarth.mp3)

On Stanley Hauerwas. Download audio file (wrighthauerwas.mp3)

On his most recent book, After You Believe: Why Christian Character Matters and why he chose to write about eschatology before ethics. Download audio file (wrightafteryoubelieve.mp3)

On the difference between Aristotelian virtue and Christian virtue. Download audio file (wrightchristianvirtue.mp3)

On the role of character and virtue in other religions. Download audio file (wrightreligiousvirtue.mp3)

On cultural virtue. Download audio file (wrightculturalvirtue.mp3)

On the renewing of our minds when they have become largely detached from the rest of who we are. Download audio file (wrightrenewing.mp3)

On Christianity Post-Postmodernity. Download audio file (wrightchristianitypostpostmodernity.mp3)

On the after-after life. Download audio file (wrightafterlife.mp3)

What NT Wright is reading, thinking, and planning for his “big book on Paul” as the next in his Christian Origins series. Download audio file (wrightreading.mp3)

What we can expect from NT Wright in his new role. Download audio file (wrightfuture.mp3)

Jim Belcher, the author of Deep Church: A Third Way Beyond Emerging and Traditional, and I have much in common.

We both did masters degrees at Fuller Theological Seminary.

We both have a heart for church planting.

I teach a class on the Emerging Church based on the intensive that he references in his book. (35)

We get frustrated when people talk past one another, defaulting to caricatured stereotypes rather than embracing a posture of openness.

And we both value looking for a “third way” to approach dichotomistic thinking.

He is right when he says,

It seems that every time someone criticizes the emerging church, they pick the worst-case scenario or the most extreme statements. (49)

He is also correct in noting,

It seems the emerging church, for rhetorical purposes, uses sweeping generalizations about the traditional church that are unfair. (76)

The larger Body of Christ would indeed be served well by discourse that is deeper, more specific, and marked by a sense of humble openness.  Belcher’s chapters on Deep: Truth, Evangelism, Gospel, Worship, Preaching, Ecclesiology, and Culture, are essentially his attempts  to facilitate just that – a worthwhile enterprise in my opinion.

While Belcher’s book is truly helpful in this regard, I’m not sure he really hits the mark in terms of articulating a true “third way” as a means of engaging these topics.  Very often, his conclusions in these chapters are a combination of a chastened version of the EC position he articulates and an expanded version of the traditional position he articulates (usually w/ reference to Tim Keller and his church!).  I suppose this is a kind of “third way,” maybe even precisely the one Belcher desires, but I’m not certain it’s the most helpful kind of third way for the Church to pursue.

The mistake, I believe, comes in the assumption that one can simply pit the positions of the EC against the positions of the traditional church.  The main problem here is that many in the EC camp are themselves trying to articulate and maneuver a “third way” between the modern categories of conservatism and liberalism, a feature that Belcher seems to either overlook or discount w/o comment.  An indication of this is his quick dismissal of the Anabaptist tradition from which many in the EC draw as one which is able to circumvent many of the dichotomies addressed in this book on account of its fundamentally, Christendom-rejecting, stance.  Belcher never seems to ask, “How might people in the EC camp already be searching for a third way in response to classic approaches to these issues?,” but assumes that their positions are simply reactions against the positions of traditional churches.

Belcher sets himself on this course in stating,

We need to define it [the emerging church] as a movement, particularly its theology.  The best way to do this is to look at what the emerging church movement is against – the things they are protesting and the rasons why they are calling for change. (38)

For the life of me, I can’t grasp why someone would want to define a movement by what they are against (even it it is a protest movement) rather than what they are for.  We certainly regard what the classic reformers were for as far more more important than what they were against!  But more than this, Belcher fails to identify missiology as a core motif for the EC.  For many, if not most, in the global EC movement, it is an attempt to participate with God and God’s mission in the world that is reshaping how they understand the sorts of topics that Belcher raises in his book, not vice versa.

These criticisms notwithstanding, I am glad that Jim wrote this book and don’t doubt for a second that it has an will continue to help many.

**Jim has recently decided to resign from his position as lead pastor at Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Newport Beach, CA.  You can read a letter he wrote to the congregation regarding this transition here and some additional discussion about this sort of trend here.

UPDATE: Be sure to check out what other bloggers are saying about their experience at this gathering.

Dave Fitch here and here, Ben Sternke, J.R. Briggs, Todd Hiestand, Drew Hart, and Geoff Holsclaw (not quite real).  I’ll add more as I become aware of them.

John Chandler is in.

Here’s Geoff Holsclaw’s real one.

Bob Hyatt provides his reflections here.

Jason Salamun, new to Eclclesia, reviews his time here.

——————————————–

The missional community Amy and I are a part of, Life on the Vine, is a part of Ecclesia,

a relational network of churches, leaders and movements that seek to equip, partner and multiply missional churches and movements.

Before I offer some reflections on the national gathering that just concluded, I wanted to mention a few of the unique features of Ecclesia that compel me to appreciate this network more than others.

The Kingdom of God.  As opposed to one particular understanding of the gospel, Eccelsia finds unity in Jesus’ message of the Kingdom thus making room for those who articulate the good news in different ways.

Relationships/Partnerships.  Through and through, Ecclesia is relationally driven. They exhibit no desire for the network to be central, but rather labor to facilitate relationships and partnerships between leaders and churches.

Affirmation of Women.  We still have work to do in this area, but especially at this years gathering which featured a husband wife team as keynote presenters, we put on display what I hope continues to emerge as as a stated value for the importance of men and women partnering in ministry.

I could probably add more, but on to the reflections I go.

Dallas Willard and Bob & Mary Hopkins were the speakers for the main sessions. Todd Hunter was supposed to be there as well, but needed to cancel for personal and understandable reasons.

Dallas was brilliant.  Wisdom seemed to pour out of this man as he spoke.  His main theme through the week was “knowledge.”  He wasn’t speaking of the intellectual/factual sort of knowledge, but the relational/experiential sort. His aim seemed to be that we would be known not just for what we do, but what we deeply, personally, and powerfully know to be true about God and life in God’s Kingdom.

One of the topics Dallas took up in a break out session was that of religious pluralism.  Central to that conversation was the issue of homosexuality.  As he so often does Dallas reframed the trajectory of the conversation by commenting,

I think homosexuality is a disastrous lifestyle, but heterosexuality ain’t doing so good either. And if it weren’t for the failings of heterosexuality, homosexuality may not be such a huge issue.

This is what Dallas does best.  He brings a frame of reference that just isn’t on the radar for so many people.  For Dallas, the main issue is always is our nuanced journey into Christlike character as opposed to simple doctrinal statements or moral judgments.

Bob & Mary Hopkins were equally excellent. Mainly they talked about the functioning of teams and incarnational/contextual issues of church planting and ministry.

They shared from their years of experience with church planting and equipping church leaders and teams in the UK.

Everything that Willard and the Hopkins’ had to say was insightful and helpful, but I don’t think it was my favorite part of the week.  My favorite part of the week was the consistency and pervasiveness of voices from within the network.  A big part of this was the size of the gathering – capped at 200.  But more than that, the structure of the gathering featured panel sessions, extended Q&A sessions, and specific opportunities for us to hear, both as a large group and via breakout sessions, from those who are leading local churches within the network.

I may have some more thoughts that surface later, but for now, here’s the twitter stream (#eng2010) from the conference as well as the live blog we used.  The audio from the conference should be available soon and I’ll be sure to let you know when it is.

Previous posts in this Series:

Preliminary Thoughts | The Root of the Problem | The Fruit of the Problem | New Soil | Community Rootedness | Character Formation | Conviction Shaping | Contextual Training

Christendom bore no real need for leaders who were cultural pioneers.  After all, if the culture is already Christian, what do we have to pioneer?  It would be logical to conclude then, that as Christendom crumbles, the need for leaders with the skills for cultural pioneering would increase.  This would be true and mistaken at the same time.  It’s true that we have a greater and greater need for cultural pioneers, but the crumbling of Christendom isn’t the reason.  Rather, a missional vision of the church carries with it an inherent need for leaders who serve as cultural pioneers which means we need a vision of theological education capable of equipping men and women for this task.

Allow me to offer just 2 basic points to support my argument for this need.

First, missional churches operate out of the assumption that mission is part of God’s very character and nature.  God sends the son, the Father and the Son send the Holy Spirit, the Trinity sends the Church as the Body of Christ.  Little wonder then that missional church leaders lament the modern phenomenon of churches playing the role of vendors of religious goods and services that spend the bulk of their time, energy, and money trying to get people to come.  Missional churches are not those who focus on offering the best “Christian” stuff (teaching, programs, groups, etc.), but those who focus on engaging with world’s darkest and toughest needs.

Second, missional churches tend to be marked by their attention to Jesus’ announcement of the good news of God’s Kingdom, the new reality inaugurated in Jesus.  Just as Jesus stood at odds with the culture of his day on account of his allegiance to God’s Kingdom, so too the missional church of today will find itself at odds with the culture of our day as we seek to embody God’s Kingdom through faith in Jesus.  To understand the local church as an expression of a new reality, however, means that we recognize the need for leaders capable of cultural pioneering.

Current models of theological education seem to come up short in terms of their fit to equip male and female leaders on both these counts.  How then are we to go about doing so?  I offer three ideas for the training of cultural pioneers.

1) Deep involvement in a missional community

There is no better way to learn how to be a cultural pioneer that to participate in a community that is seeking to do this very thing.  My hope and expectation would be that to a great degree, the various aspects of this missional vision of theological education that I have been describing would all serve to produce leaders who think and act in terms of cultural pioneering.  I have a hard time imagining that someone could give themselves to a process of formation that is rooted in community and centered around character formation through the shaping of Kingdom convictions and contextual training and emerge as someone who would rather manage a program driven group of individuals than lead a community into the world as an expression of God’s alternative reality.

2) Encourage Cultural Creation & Cultivation

I am indebted to Andy Crouch and his book, Culture Making, for my thinking (and language) on this.  The power and trajectory of Christendom resulted in a church that, at various times, thought of “culture” as some monolithic thing that it could condemn, critique, copy, or consume.  Only now, as we increasingly find ourselves on the margins of society, are we rediscovering the postures of creating and cultivating culture.  We create culture through values, practices, and imagination.  However, as Crouch says,

We cannot make culture without culture.  And this means that creation begins with cultivation – taking care of the good things culture has already handed on to us.  The first responsibility of culture makers is not to make something new but to become fluent in the cultural tradition to which we are responsible.  Before we can be culture makers, we must be culture keepers.

This leads us directly to the third ingredient in forming cultural pioneers.

3) Practicing Discernment

The need for skilled discernment is going nowhere but up!  Never before in human history has so much information and so many opinions been so easily accessible.  Add to this the pervasive individualism and relativism of Western culture and you are left with a cultural nightmare for those who believe in such a thing as contextual faithfulness to biblical truth.  As Jesus’ disciples were, we must be taught to see, hear, and feel with eyes, ears, and hearts attuned to the reality of the Kingdom of God in our midst.  How are we ever to create culture unless we can discern our way through it as followers of Jesus?  This takes years of practice within community and remains a lifelong discipline.

Are there other aspects of cultural pioneering that you think I’m missing?  How else might we equip others to this end?  Anxious for your (end of the year and end of the series!) thoughts.

Previous posts in this Series:

Preliminary Thoughts | The Root of the Problem | The Fruit of the Problem | New Soil | Community Rootedness | Character Formation | Conviction Shaping

I have tried to make a case that a missional vision of theological education is one rooted in community that emphasizes the formation of Christan character marked by Kingdom convictions. I would further suggest that a missional vision of theological education will seek to train leaders contextually.

This is missiology 101.  Urban ministry is different than suburban.  Ministry amongst the poor is different than ministry amongst the affluent.  Ministry with adolescents is different than ministry with senior citizens.  Traditional theological education, however, is not equipped to train people with these nuances in mind.  The dominant expression of theological education within Christendom has been training at geographically specific institutions.  These schools of course bring their own context to bear on the training they are doing, but are necessarily limited by that same feature.  Geography isn’t the only problem, the very model of education employed in the seminary environment distances, if not outright separates, theological education from contextual factors.  Some schools have begun trying to correct this problem through online education, allowing students to continue serving in their present context while doing intensive biblical & theological study.  As I said here, these innovations within the current system of theological education are helpful, but they aren’t aimed at the other aspects of missional theological education that I have already covered.  So, the question before us is,

Within a missional vision of theological education, how will contextual leadership development take place?

I can think of at least three aspects of a beginning answer to that question.

1) Networks

Church networks are the missional answer to the decay of denominations. For good or for bad, denominations are crumbling.  In an era of post’s (post-modernity, post-Christendom, etc.) you can add to the list post-denominationalism.  Springing up in their place are inter-denominational networks of churches.  In my opinion, the best of these are striving to make a shared vision of missional living more central than individual points of doctrine.  Besides always being rooted in a particular context, the realities of globalization and pluralism mean that no one congregation has the capacity to train leaders for the church of the future by itself.  It must look outside.  If leaders are to be identified by local communities and if these same communities are to take primary responsibility for their holistic formation and contextual training, then meaningful involvement in a healthy network of missional churches through the sharing of resources and common ministry is a big part of how we accomplish the contextual training of leaders.

2) Apprenticeship

The most valuable resources to the spiritual formation & training of leaders are men and women who offer years of faithful service within a given context. Reading, writing, and peer discussion all have a vital place in the formation of missional church leaders, but all of these dimensions gain their final value in terms of their practical implications in a given context.  Seasoned leaders are invaluable in helping to achieve this goal.  Cultivating missional church leaders who have the skills necessary to help a body of people understand the gospel and its implications in contextually appropriate ways calls for a mentor-apprentice(s) dimension to any process of theological education.

3) Civic Engagement

Civic engagement needs to increasingly become a hallmark of both missional church ministry and leadership formation.  Immersion has long been a defining mark of truly cross-cultural ministry.  Therefore, those churches who embrace the West as a mission field should immediately resonate with the idea that the best way to become incarnationally faithful is to immerse themselves in their context.  The reason for this is at least 2-fold 1) To discover where and how God is already at work. 2) To discern what incarnationally faithful witness to the gospel will mean and look like.

If it’s not already obvious, this aspect of a missional vision of theological education is tied directly to the centrality of the Missio Dei for a missional ecclesiology.  A big part of what makes missional churches missional is their abdication of attractional approaches to church and ministry in favor of incarnational ones. All that Jesus said and did was said and done in light of the people he was speaking to and the place he was speaking in.  In both ministry and leadership formation, we do well to follow this pattern of contextual wisdom.

What has your experience with contextual leadership training been?  Do you see other ways to accomplish this goal in or outside of traditional models of theological education?

In my next post, I hope to round things off with some thoughts on cultural pioneering as a final mark of a missional vision of theological education.

Previous posts in this Series:

Preliminary Thoughts | The Root of the Problem | The Fruit of the Problem | New Soil | Community Rootedness | Character Formation

One of the greatest needs of missional churches is leaders who have been trained how to think as opposed to what to think, who are able to equip others for deep incarnational witness, and whose character and giftedness has been practiced and affirmed in the context of a local community. This was the point of my previous post – the centrality of character formation in a missional vision of theological education.

From here, I want to go on to say that a missional vision of theological education will emphasize the shaping of Kingdom convictions in leaders.

No one is more responsible for my appreciation of this dimension of a missional vision of theological education than the late Dr. James Wm. McClendon.  His work was the center of my masters thesis and continues to shape my life as a disciple of Jesus is all its forms.

The most admirable Christian leaders are not those men and women who have sought to do great, big things for the Kingdom, but who have faithfully responded to that which God has done in their lives.  They were and are men and women of conviction and as McClendon points out,

Convictions are not so much things we have, but things which have us.

Christendom, as a system of coercive power, naturally emphasizes control.  This emphasis has resulted in two dominant emphases in the shaping of leaders – the passing on of systems of belief and/or the training in particular models of ministry.  I am against neither of these things in themselves.  I am merely suggesting that they need to be peripheral, not central to the training of missional leaders.  I advocate for the centrality of conviction shaping for three main reasons.

1) The shaping of Kingdom convictions is primarily the Holy Spirit’s work.

We have fooled ourselves into believing that the passing on of right doctrine or refined training in ministry models are of prime importance in theological education.  When these are our emphases, not only do we create one-dimensional leaders, but we run the greater risk of making Christian leadership development primarily a human enterprise – like training a mechanic or a sales person.  The shaping of convictions in correspondence with the reality of God’s Kingdom is much more fluid and finally contingent on the work of the Holy Spirit.  We need leaders who not so much “get God,” but ones “God’s got.”

2) The shaping of Kingdom convictions is more in accord with missional theology.

We all see and interpret things through various lenses depending on our background, experience, education, culture and so on.  Thus, missional theology is never fixed, but exists in constant interaction with Scripture, our community & its tradition, and our broader context & experience.

As I’ve said before, theological convictions are not the same as theological foundations.  Churches built on theological foundations and hell bent on being right are brought low when those foundations are assaulted. Missional churches on the other hand, more concerned with being faithfully responsive, embrace the notion that,

The convictions that cohere within any community are in principle always subject to rejection, reformulation, improvement or critical revision, and the church is no exception to this principle.

We desperately need leaders who are more convicted about a way of believing, living, and following, than they are a way of knowing or structuring.

3) The shaping of Kingdom convictions naturally flows from community rootedness and character formation.

Convictions are the result of the work of the Holy Spirit in the midst of our community-rooted character development.  As McClendon has shared, the shaping of Kingdom convictions are not

…so many ‘propositions’ to be catalogued or juggled like truth-functions in a computer, but are inextricably interwoven with ecclesial practices such as baptism and eucharist, hospitality and reconciliation, peacemaking and the mutual bearing of burdens, where they ‘give shape to actual lives and actual communities.’

They are,

generated by ‘a shared and lived story, one whose focus is Jesus of Nazareth and the kingdom he proclaims.

This is what we see when we look at the relationship of Jesus to his disciples.  The cultivation of a community of followers who, dense as they were, and prone to weakness, were convicted of Jesus’ Messiahship, his judgment and triumph over the evil powers at work in the world, and the beginning of the renewal of all things in his resurrection.

Think for a moment about the people who most inspire you and you enjoy following.  Chances are the reason is that something has gripped them, you sense it in all they say and do and you’re interested, if not desperate, to know it for yourself.  This is what I am saying, for the Christian leader, is the work of the Holy Spirit in accord with a missional theology that finds its home in the midst of community of people following Jesus on mission together.

Can you offer examples of this?  Anyone who has counter-examples?  How have traditional approaches to theological education helped or failed you in this regard?

Next up – the place of contextual training in a missional vision of theological education.

Some quotes and ideas stem from: Harvey, Barry.  “Beginning in the Middle of Things: Following James McClendon’s Systematic Theology. Modern Theology 18:2, April 2002.

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.

In my last post about bi-vocational church leadership, I tried to make the point that this approach derives its theological significance from a truly missional approach to theology and ecclesiology.

I wanted to winnow that thought down a bit further and suggest that the biblical appeal for a bi-vocational approach to leadership (and in my opinion, the biblical appeal for anything that has to do with the church and Chirstian life!) has to do with spiritual formation.

Far too often people seek to defend their church structures and practices because of their supposed ability to, “grow the church,” “meet people where they’re at,” or “reflect people’s cultural expectations.” These have a ring of nobility to them but are far off the mark biblically speaking. Far worse is when we are forced to admit that we do what we do because, “that’s how it’s always been done,” “if we try to change things people will leave,” “so and so will stop giving if we stop doing things that way.”

As the Body of Christ, we should have a singular defense for everything we do, namely, its power to spiritually form people and communities into Christlikeness.*

Here’s why…

There’s a battle going on. The Church, as a foretaste of the Kingdom of God, through its formational practices and structures, wages war against the principalities and powers at work in the world which seek to “steal, kill, and destroy” all that God would have us be and do.

In Christendom, the Church equipped itself to fight the wrong battle. Within Christendom, so much is assumed about the nature and purpose of the church, that we tend to ask pragmatic questions. Does it work? But, for those of us who realize that Christendom is crumbling and/or think that it was never a good thing to begin with, these questions aren’t good enough. We need to ask deeper questions.

Biblical faithfulness is about mission, not models. As one helpful commenter pointed out in a previous post, the Bible does not prescribe one way to lead churches. There are several examples of what that looked like in the New Testament, but even these are not simply models to be copied as if we could then say, “We just do it like they did in the Bible.” The better way to understand biblical faithfulness is as an honest pursuit to join God in mission, not copy models. The Church is charged with the task of making disciples and is not given an exact blueprint for how to go about it.

This brings us full circle. Those churches whose structures and practices mainly serve the ends of church growth, cultural relevance, and even conversion, miss the mark. They are fighting the wrong battle biblically speaking.

I am advocating for a bi-vocational approach to church leadership, not because I can defend it as THE RIGHT biblical model or because it’s most effective (Christendom approaches), but because the tendencies in our culture toward consumerism and individualism are so thick that faithfulness to the mission of making disciples, forming people and communities into Christlikeness, make it the most appropriate option (missional approach).

Hopefully that serves to clarify my thoughts and intention some.

*I was greatly encouraged today while viewing this seminar online to hear Dr. Darrell Guder comment that, “It was not the mission of the apostolic church to save souls! The apostolic mission was the formation witnessing communities.” This is a far cry from how we commonly envision the role of church leaders, but something we badly need to recover.

This post was supposed to have gone up back in February, not quite sure how it got lost in the fray.  Oh yeah, that’s right – I was busy falling in love

I was able to polish off another book I have been working on yesterday, Culture Making: Recovering Our Creative Calling by Andy Crouch.  Recommended by several others, it was another one that had been on my reading list for a while, but once I started I flew through it.

Taken in the dual senses of creativity and interpretation, Crouch offers an understanding of culture as “what we make of the world.” (23) As any good author on the subject might, Crouch devoted the first section of the book to trying to unpack the huge and loaded term, culture.  From language to lasers and omelets to interstate highways, the author seeks to help readers understand the subtle nuance and the huge impact of cultural goods and practices.

Perhaps because it helped me understand so much of the way God has wired me personally, the import of the book came down to one single phrase…

Culture helps us behave ourselves into new ways of thinking. (64)

I think at heart I am a culture shaper – always thinking about practices and activities people and communities can engage in together which offer the necessary context and space to think differently (perhaps more on this in a future post).

At any rate, this notion leads into the author’s central section on the gospel.  This is a masterful section in which Crouch offers a narrative account of the relationship between God and humanity through the whole Bible highlighting God’s culturally creative nature and our place in that work from the Garden of Eden to the city of New Jerusalem.  There is simply too much goodness to unpack here.  The author rounds out this section with a helpful discussion of Niebuhr’s classic, Christ and Culture.

The final section of the book is on our subsequent “Calling.”  This section was good, but to be honest, I thought Crouch missed a huge opportunity to speak more directly to the implications of “Culture Making” for the local church.  To be sure there are, in this section, the seeds of further thought which the author may have intentionally planted and left unwatered, but I felt let down.

Culture making is intrinsic to the Church’s participation in God’s mission in the world.  With God, we seek not to convert culture, neither to condemn it.  Rather, as those who live in the reality of the Kingdom of God, we create culture that both reflects and engenders the purposes and character of God.  I can’t think of anything more incredible to give my life to.

My friend JR Woordward has put together a fun line up of people to submit brief blog posts answering the question…

If you local city newspaper asked you to describe the Good News – what would you write?

Here’s my submission and I encourage you to check out the other posts offered between now and Pentecost.  Feel free to offer your comments here if you like, but there are already several good ones over at JR Woodward’s site that you can add to as well.  I will be checking and responding over there too.

The Commercial Appeal is the place where countless Memphians turn for news – some of it good, much of it, not so good.  We are a city divided by race, stricken by generational poverty, plagued by crime, and disadvantaged by socio-economic stratification.  Good news for us usually comes in the form of an absence of bad as opposed to the presence of beautiful surprises.  For those with eyes to see, these problems are far more than the result of individual human errors and failings; they also stem from firmly entrenched systems, paradigms, and powers, which create a broken culture that produces broken people.  There is a cycle at work here more insidious than we realize or could hope to finally defeat on our own.  But there’s good news.

I’m a Christian and Christians are good news people.  In fact, a central manta of the Christian faith is, “Repent and believe the good news.”  This isn’t about saying you’re sorry to God so you can go to Heaven when you die. It’s Jesus’ invitation to, by grace and through faith, escape the consequences of our capitulation to a world gone wrong by joining him in the ways he sees and engages the world.

See, God plans to recreate all that has been tainted and lost by evil and darkness.  The sphere in which this happens is known as the Kingdom of God.  Jesus embodied this Kingdom in his life and sealed it in his death and resurrection. That’s news, but it’s not quite good yet; cause news is only really good when it’s experienced.  This news becomes truly good for us when God’s plan for the future intersects with our present.  Ours is not good news that God will do, but good news that God is doing.

Jesus was the bearer of good news par excellence and those of us who bear his name but fail to similarly bear good news to the world around us have a share in the guilt and misery of the city and people we are called to lovingly serve.  This is where the Church comes in.  God means for the Church to be a unique body though whom Jesus actually continues freeing people from harmful things and reconnecting them with God and others. The Christian God is one of relationship.  Therefore, God’s Good News to the people and city of Memphis is purposefully intertwined with communities of people gripped by it.

Fellow Memphians, if you’re like me, grieved over the many sad circumstances of our city, if you are desperate for a new start, for healing and wholeness, I hope you will consider the news of God’s desire and plan for the world including the tiny metroplex of Memphis.  The news might not be the sort you’d expect, maybe not even the sort you’d prefer, but it’s good in the truest meaning of the word.

Yesterday – Martin Luther King Jr. Day and Today – the inauguration of Barack Obama as the first African-American President of the United States, are two big days.

Especially as a citizen of Memphis, where Dr. King was assassinated, the importance of all he stood for comes powerfully home.  Memphis is in many ways a broken and hurting city.  Racial division (if not tension) remains thick.  Systems and structures which perpetuate generational poverty and crime continue to plague us.  And the dominant expression of church here in the mid-south seems unable or unwilling to powerfully engage this sort of brokenness.  Memphis is a city desperate for the good news of God’s Kingdom breaking forth into the world.

I caught a glimmer of this hope the other day as I was remembering King’s famous, “Paul’s Letter to American Christians” and came across this quote (from that sermon) on one of the walls of the downtown YMCA where I workout…

Let no man pull you so low as to hate him.

I am happy to stand with those who are excited about the progress we have made as a country, evidenced in our election of a black President.  I am even happy to stand with those inspired by the hope that this new President and administration aim to offer to a nation that has lost its way in war, economic crisis, and poor international reputation.  Yet I long for more.

Yesterday we celebrated a man and his legacy of striving for racial reconciliation, care for the poor, and justice for all.  Today we celebrate the dawn of a new era for our country, an era (perhaps) to be marked by change for the better.

But I long for the day that only God can bring about, a day when all our human striving and labor will be tested as with fire.  The chaff of our striving will be burned away and the precious stones of our striving will be even further refined.  On 2 days when it is so easy for me to get caught up in the acclaim of two good men, one who had a dream and another who represents, in part, the evidence of that dream coming to pass, I pause to remember the supremacy of the one man, who, at the height of his glory, was abandoned by all as he hung on a cross and proclaimed, “It is finished.”

The Short Answer:

It’s a biblical/theological decision that has to do with conscience (1 Cor. 10:31-33) and not the candidates themselves

The longer, but hopefully more interesting answer:

As I did 4 years ago, I have toiled and prayed over this decision for months and have not come to it lightly.  But, for the life of me, when I try to envision Jesus living here and now, I just can’t see him walking into an election booth.  Others have no problem with this vision, many of them even have no problem stating for sure just which box he’d tick, but the Jesus I encounter in the gospels refused to capitulate to the political parties of his day and in trying to follow him, I am simply more interested in charting a different course altogether and inviting others along.

Tim Kumfer, in his brilliant article, “Between Sojourners and the Simple Way? Rethinking Radical Evangelical Politics in ’08 with John Howard Yoder” says,

A majority of the church in the United States still assumes that voting is one of the most meaningful ways Christians can engage themselves politically. This assumption is Constantinian; it assumes that politics for Christians is primarily about ensuring that society is headed our way…the problem occurs when we are more concerned with managing this realm than witnessing to a different one.

This mentality was perfectly embodied just the other day as I listened to a gentleman speak to a large crowd, encouraging them to vote for whichever candidate they thought would most ensure freedom of religious rights for Christians.  I find this sort of thinking to be positively debilitating to the character of the Church.  To think for a moment that the Church would believe that its ability to function had anything whatsoever to do with government protected rights is just the sort of posture that led to the utter decimation of the people of God in the First Testament.  A Church which looks to the government to protect its rights is in grave danger.

This really worries me.  Not only because I live in a place where the reality of this assumption is thicker than I have ever experienced, but because I am not above falling prey to it.

As I understand the Bible, I would say that all those who follow Jesus are given freedom to vote if they choose, but nowhere do I sense that this is an obligation. There are typically two common biblical objections to this which I will try to respond to briefly.

The first is Jesus’ command, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s.” (Mark 12:17)  I actually think (ala NT Wright) that in classic Jesus fashion, this is an underhanded way of saying, “Caesar actually doesn’t have a right to anything since everything is God’s.  So, if you want to pay taxes (or vote or otherwise participate in government), go right ahead, just don’t forget who you are ultimately accountable to.”

Others would quote Romans 13:1, “The authorities that exist have been established by God.”  But I am reminded that secular governments, even democratic ones, are a result of people rejecting God (1 Sam. 8:7).  Not rebelling against them is one thing – we made our bed and therefore must lie in it, but assuming they have a claim on our allegiance and participation is quite another.

Not voting is a way to remind myself (and hopefully others) of these things – that it is the church and the church alone which witnesses to a new world order – which is called to put on display in the here and now what God dreams for the new creation.

A few influences.  Shane Claiborne wrote a good article entitled, “Advise Everyone… Endorse No One” that helped me to think about these issues.

As one with Anabaptist leanings, I was influenced, first in 2005, and again this year, by this article from John D. Roth, “Polls Apart.”

The words of Stanley Hauerwas in this article/audio were helpful.

As were David Fitch’s musings on, “Not Voting as an Act of Christian Discernment: Calling the Emerging Church Into a Different Kind of Faithfulness.”

Liked Mark Van Steenwyk’s thoughts here.

Finally, once again Derek Webb has come through on the bonus track of the re-release of Mockingbird (which you can get for free here), with “How Then Shall We Then Vote?”

It may very well be that my decision on this matter comes from having a weaker conscience than some others, but as it indeed is my conscience here I stand and can do no other.

Our church community is spending three months wrestling in and through the Psalms.  It is our hope that this time would be much more than a simple sermon series, but a season of spiritual formation for us as a community.  As part of that desire, we have created a blog and various people are posting entries in an effort to stimulate discussion.  So, whether you are a Living Hoper or another friend, hop on over there, check out the first couple of posts and share your thoughts.  Here is my recent submission…

I have been sitting on this post for a while, but thought it related enough to the previous one to go ahead and throw it out there.

Recently, some friends here in Memphis have been discussing the possibility of moving towards engaging in a lifestyle of intentional community.  This is an unfamiliar topic to most, so I thought I would offer some word of introduction.

Intentional community is not new, hip, or faddish.  It is an old practice, but largely lost within our Western framework of individual autonomy.  One type of intentional community goes under the title, Neo-Monasticism, but there are many varieties of it.

Across the board, however, I would say these varieties share a few things in common.

1) It is a means to an end. The point is not community in and of itself.  Rather, it is one way of practicing community (something we all, created in the imago dei, are designed for), so that…  And while the “so that’s” may vary, there is always a “so that.”

2) It is a means of spiritual formation. Sharing the totality of our lives and the experience of whatever the “so that” is – is spiritually formative in many ways, but especially in that it is a true opening up of ourselves to others.  An intentional effort to say, “I refuse to allow my life to be about me – it must be about us.”

3) It makes life both harder and easier. As my friend Matthew has commented, if we move into intentional community and our lives don’t become less hurried, less stressful, and less overwhelming while also becoming more exciting, joy filled, and transformative, we have missed something, missed the point.  At the same time, it is not easy to open your life to others, to depend on them and have them depend on you.  This is a foreign way of being for a great many of us.

Stepping into Intentional Community as a way of life is also not without its risks.  What if it’s not what we expect?  What if some who make the initial commitment bail?

While some will consider moving into the same neighborhood to more easily share life with others, there are also those who might embrace communal living, where those of various seasons of life – singles, couples, those with children, actually share the same living space as an expression of intentional community.  For these folks, there are of course other risks.  What if an affair happens?  What if a kid gets abused?  What if people simply can’t get along and the experience becomes awful?  I think we’re fooling ourselves if we don’t own up to the reality of any of that.  Which is why the whole process ought to be bathed in prayer, discernment, and wise guidelines.  However, to a certain extent, the “What if…” questions, while important, are akin to those we could ask of nearly any Kingdom enterprise.  If living Kingdom lives came without risk, then we’d do well to worship a savior known for anything other than his embrace of a cross.

On top of that, we also need to consider the risks (though they be less evident) of not finding significant ways to live in community.  How many lives are torn apart, figuratively and literally, because their lives are so private that no one ever knows what’s going on behind closed doors and closed lives?  What about those whose lives of extravagance and luxury trap them into a seemingly endless cycle of greed and gluttony?  What about the millions and millions of Christians who will never engage their neighbors and neighborhoods in any meaningful sense because the task it just too daunting to take on alone?  What about those who, if only they had partners, would feel the freedom to engage the dangerous, violent, and dark parts of our world?

Intentional Community as a way of life is an attempt to address these sorts of questions.  It is not glamorous, but living into the way of Jesus never is.

If I had to guess, I’d say that I’ll be posting on “the scandalous impracticality of all that Jesus stood for” really soon as I can’t seem to stop thinking about it.

As a prelude to that though, I wanted to point to a message Gib offered to the Living Hope community this past Sunday when I was away, “Riches in Poverty.”  Probably my favorite line, “Every time currency changes hands, I am making a spiritual decision.”  How different our lives would be, how different our very understanding on what it means to be a gospel people if we embraced and lived out this Kingdom truth!