October 27, 2006

The Oddness of Pews

Some things in life are certain—death, taxes, and cramped seats in economy class. But Cathay Pacific, one of Asia’s leading airlines, has announced a breakthrough. They’ve designed an economy class seat that reclines without intruding on the person seated behind. For centuries church meant fixed seating in uncomfortable wood pews, but breakthroughs have been occurring in church seating as well. We now have theater seats with cup holders. But should comfort be the driving motivation? In this post, Dan Kimball from Vintage Faith Church explores the odd nature of pews, their history, and how church seats reflect our theology.

We were in the middle of moving our church offices and worship gathering location from a very new contemporary building built about 6 years ago to a very beautiful brick church built in 1938. In preparation for moving we had been redecorating and remodeling of the children's rooms, the offices, and turning the fellowship hall into a coffeehouse/art gallery. However, one thing was tormenting me—the pews in the sanctuary. I have never been part of a church that has pews, so these things were very confusing to me.

As I sat in the pews I realized how odd they are. These things are so small. You have to squeeze to get into them. They are very uncomfortable and creaky. Wooden seats with a little red cushion. Once other people sit next to you, you are stuck. Kind of like being in the window seat of an airplane and needing to step over two other people to get out.

However, sitting comfortably isn't the issue to me. Most of the time I sit on the floor at Vintage Faith Church. I also know we are fortunate to have a roof over our heads, and many Christians in other countries don't have buildings at all or are persecuted for their faith. So, the "comfortable" factor is actually the least of my concerns. I think my dilemma with the pews is what they communicate and what they teach theologically.

I decided to do some research on where these strange things called "pews" came from. The church did not use pews for over 1,000 years. The original vintage church met in homes, so the feeling was family—a community looking at one another and interacting with one another. The first formal church building was built in the post-300 AD time period and modeled after the Roman Basilica, and in these buildings people stood the whole time. There were no seats at all. So standing allowed interacting and the freedom to walk around. In the 13th Century there were backless benches made of stone placed against walls. They were placed in a semi-circle around the meeting room and then eventually fixed to the floor.

In the 14th century pews as we know them were introduced but did not become popular until the 15th century. Remember, in this time period the Reformation was happening and the pulpit was introduced as the focal point of church architecture. So the pews became the place where people took their seat to focus on the pulpit and the sermon. They didn't have Bibles of their own, they didn't read for the most part, so they made rows of seats to sit and listen to someone talk.

How we sit when we gather reflects what we believe is important in worship. The early church met in homes, it was communal, looking at each other in small rooms, discussing and teaching Scripture, praying for one another and eating a meal together. You could walk around, have dialog. Then the church moved into buildings where the Table (the Lord's Supper) was the focal point and we stood, moved around the room, interacted. Then we moved into buildings where the pews caused people to sit in stationary positions, not looking at each other, but looking at the pulpit and all facing the same direction. This drastically changes the culture and climate of how we view the church and worship. It becomes more of a sit/watch/listen meeting, rather than an interactive community gathering.

It seems like an odd thing to invite someone into our church "family", bring them into a room and make them sit for over an hour on benches looking at the back of heads staring at the front of the room. I don't think our own families would have a meeting this way. I am trying to imagine Jesus and His disciples having the last supper meal while sitting in rows of pews.

For our church pews represent almost the exact opposite of how we worship. We give people the opportunity to walk around, to go to prayer stations, to lie down or sit on the floor if that is how they desire to express worship or pray. We try to be "respectfully relaxed" when we meet. We go to extra effort to set up a mix of round tables and chairs to create a vibe of community, rather than rows of people looking at backs of heads like in a bus or airplane or movie theater. So our move to a pew-filled room for worship was not very "vintage faith".

Our plan is to move the pews out of the sanctuary little by little, leaving just a few of them. I look forward to the removal. They are very, very odd things.

Posted by UrL at October 27, 2006 | Comments (47) | TrackBack

October 25, 2006

Out of Context: John Burke

"I think we've focused some good attention on racism in the last 20 years, but I'm starting to wonder if 'ageism' is the next divide we will have to address."

-John Burke is pastor of Gateway Community Church in Austin, Texas and author of No Perfect People Allowed
Taken from “Family Portrait" in the Fall 2006 issue of Leadership Journal. To see the quote IN context, you'll need to see the print version of Leadership. To subscribe, click on the cover of Leadership on this page.

Posted by UrL at October 25, 2006 | Comments (6) | TrackBack

October 22, 2006

Who’s More Spiritual: Emergent or Traditional Evangelicals?

Okay, so no one’s had the chutzpah to frame the question so baldly. But each group seems to assume the answer in its favor--at least, that’s the impression you’d get from some emergent critiques of traditional evangelicals and from some traditional-evangelical critiques of emergents. But what if we asked the question directly, and tried to answer it just as directly: Who is more spiritually mature? On the whole, are emergent believers or traditional evangelicals more faithful in their following of Christ?

To answer, we need a clear standard for measuring Christian spirituality. The best one is given by Jesus (Mark 12:29-31), but presumably both emergents and traditionals have already read that and used that for their critiques of the other. Could we find a standard of Christian spirituality that encompasses Jesus’ teaching yet offers fresh points of differentiation? We might consider the four “nonnegotiable essentials” of Christian spirituality laid out by Ronald Rolheiser in The Holy Longing:

1. Private prayer and private morality: “In many of the spiritual classics of Christian literature, the writers … suggest that we will make progress in the spiritual life only if we, daily, do an extended period of private prayer, and only if we practice a scrupulous vigilance in regards to all the moral areas within our private lives. In essence, that is the first nonnegotiable within the spiritual life.”

2. Social justice: “… according to the Jewish prophets, where we stand with God depends not just upon prayer and sincerity of heart but also on where we stand with the poor. … All Christian churches have always taught this, in one way or the other, and they have also always, in their best expressions, lived it out.”

3. Mellowness of heart and spirit: “Both as liberals and conservatives we too easily write off this third prong of the spiritual life, rationalizing that our causes are so urgent, we are so wounded, and our world is so bad, that, in our situation, anger and bitterness are justified. But we are wrong…”

4. Community as a constitutive element of true worship: “… anyone who claims to love God who is invisible but refuses to deal with a visible neighbor is a liar, for one can only really love a God who is love if one is concretely involved with a real community (ultimately an ‘ecclesial community’) on earth.”

Being fool enough to set out on a fool’s errand, I now offer my thoughts as to whether traditionals or emergents better capture these essentials.

On “private prayer and private morality,” I give the nod to traditionals, who have strongly emphasized daily “quiet times” and published multitudinous devotional books and guides, as well as scrupulously observed not swearing, not watching movies that might incline one to lust, and so on. Score so far: Traditionals 1, Emergents 0.

On “social justice,” I give the nod to emergents, who from the beginning have emphasized the missio dei, the mission of God to the world in compassion and justice, and who have called congregations not so much to church growth as to church giving. Emergents have also readily and in widespread ways engaged the problems of AIDS, global warming, and Darfur. Score so far: Traditionals 1, Emergents 1.

The category “mellowness of heart and spirit” does not play to traditionals’ strengths, given their more immediate descent from fundamentalism, which needed to oppose the corrosive effects of modernism, plus traditionals’ many parachurch ministries, which require fundraising appeals to survive. The Emergents move ahead, 2-1.

In the final category, “Community as a constitutive element of true worship,” however, traditionals lead. Though emergents desire authenticity and community, several emergent-flavored books (like this one) make it seem like you can set up your own organic alternatives to a local church that has pastoral oversight, a connection to tradition, and the sacraments. Bad idea. Traditionals tie it up in the fourth quarter: 2-2.

A tie. Hmmm.

If this assessment has any value (and many, I’m sure, will say it doesn’t), it would say the following:
· If traditional evangelicals want to grow in the areas of social justice and “mellowness of heart and spirit,” one of their best teachers would be emergents.
· Conversely, if emergents want to grow in the area of private prayer and private morality, and “community as a constitutive element of true worship,” they might find tutoring at the knee of traditionals.
· Therefore, if we were to redo this assessment in five years, the group that will be “most spiritual” will be the one who learns the most from the other.

Posted by Kevin Miller at October 22, 2006 | Comments (31) | TrackBack

October 20, 2006

Cars, Cup Holders, & Complaining

Chrysler has announced it will be showcasing their new cars and SUVs at mega-churches in a strategy to reach more African-American consumers. Chevy used a similar marketing ploy back in 2002 with their trucks. Remember “Chevrolet presents the Come Together and Worship Tour”? What’s next, Hyundais at Korean Presbyterian churches? Hybrids at Episcopal churches? BMWs at Joel Osteen’s church?

In other news, Eagle Brook Church in Lino Lakes, Minnesota has designed their new auditorium with theater-style cup holders. "Coffee is such a part of our church culture," director of operations Scott Anderson said. "If they're gonna bring it in, they need a place to put it. It was a logistical decision." However, not everyone is excited about the new convenience. Anderson admits that to some in the local press “it doesn’t seem very spiritual.”

Finally, Rev. Will Bowen of Christ Church Unity in Kansas City, has challenged his congregation to go 21 days without complaining. To help overcome the urge to whine, Bowman has given out 230 purple elastic wristbands. If you complain, the band is switched to the other wrist and you try again. After two months, and to no one's surprise, only one person at the church has achieved the goal—Rev. Bowman.

Posted by UrL at October 20, 2006 | Comments (16) | TrackBack

October 18, 2006

Out of Context: Ruth Haley Barton

"Most Christian leaders sense that there should be something different about our leadership than what is offered in the secular marketplace, but we're not always sure what that is."

-Ruth Haley Barton is a spiritual director, teacher and retreat leader.
Taken from “Is My Leadership Spiritual?” in the Summer 2006 issue of Leadership Journal. To see the quote IN context, you'll need to see the print version of Leadership. To subscribe, click on the cover of Leadership on this page.

Posted by UrL at October 18, 2006 | Comments (3) | TrackBack

October 16, 2006

Evangelical Immigration

Regular Out of Ur contributor David Fitch is back to share his thoughts on church shopping, staying put, and ecumenism. And what’s with all the evangelicals going high-church anyway?

I’d like to say some things about the evangelicals going high church and even the emerging church folks rejecting their denominations of origin. I have been tempted many times to leave evangelicalism for a lot of reasons. At times, I have been tempted to leave for more substantive worship or to avoid the narrow minded cheesy ways of selling Jesus. But I think to just leave one’s inherited church, without being asked to leave, is a strike against the cause of ecumenism. What? Yeah ecumenism, the unity of the church. So I stay put.

There are good reasons for leaving churches, and also for having no denominational affiliation. Yet the trend of evangelicals leaving their church of birth for high-church traditions seems to be growing. Colleen Carroll, in her book The New Faithful, records this phenomenon. At my own alma mater, Wheaton College, many students raised as evangelicals are “converting” to either Anglo Catholicism or even Roman Catholicism. (I wonder if the Catholics count these converts like we do when it happens in reverse. The Generous Orthodoxy blog has some great discussion on the topic.)

To me this is one more expression of the historical game of musical chairs. At first it was Roman Catholics leaving for Reformed churches. Those Reformed churches came to the New World and weren’t individualistic enough, so we had Great Awakenings and folks left to join revivalist churches. Now we have people doing the reverse—leaving evangelicalism for high church traditions. They are sick of the thin insubstantial theologies and narcissistic forms of Christianity that have evolved out of evangelicalism’s individualism.

Ironically, its often the theologians who critique the consumerist habits of evangelicals and mega churches that move to the high church traditions. They “church shop” for a more substantial vision rather than help us evangelicals out of our quandary. I wonder how long it will be before the ancestors of these folks complain about rote liturgy and leave for “more authentic” version of Christianity again, and the whole cycle starts again?

I propose we give up the musical chairs and simply stay put. Let us all seek to be faithful and trust the Spirit to work where God has put us. It is slow but I believe this strategy could lead us toward a renewed unity of the church.

Alasdair Macintyre writes in After Virtue:

“The story of my life is always embedded in the story of those communities from which I derive my identity. I was born with a past, and to try to cut myself off from that past, in the individualist mode, is to deform my present relationships.… I find myself part of a history and that is generally to say, whether I like it or not, whether I recognize it or not, one of the bearers of tradition.”

I believe God’s calling upon us starts where we are born. And we are to work within that tradition, or the tradition by which we first were brought into the gospel, until informed otherwise (i.e. kicked out). We are to work for its reform from within. And just perhaps, if we stay put and keep working long enough, a true ecumenism can happen that brings all traditions together in a grand convergence of the Spirit.

I would ask evangelicals who see the value of the high church liturgical traditions not to leave, but rather bring that understanding to bear on their evangelical practices. And Catholics, who see the problems of inaccessible or dead liturgy in their church, don’t leave, but bring these insights to bear on their church. The same holds true for other doctrinal issues and other traditions. If we all stayed put and worked for reform from within rather than abandon our churches, the traditions might converge by the Holy Spirit. We’re already seeing it between Catholics and evangelicals as Scot McKnight has blogged about. We’re already seeing it as more evangelicals and emerging churches see the value of historical forms of worship. We’re already seeing it as more evangelical traditions are working together.

By staying within our respective traditions we can build the bridges necessary to bring liturgy to evangelicals, community to Catholics and white evangelicals, justice to the mega-churches, and mission to the Catholics. In this way, if we emerging folk would stay in our traditions and denominations we might become a force for ecumenism among the Christian traditions.

Posted by UrL at October 16, 2006 | Comments (28) | TrackBack

October 12, 2006

Baptizing the Imagination

Our Good Friday this year included no sermon, no worship team, no cutting edge technology or lavish drama. And still people lingered for hours to pray, teenagers returned later in the night with their friends, and children begged their parents for the opportunity to stay longer. Why? I believe it’s because our church chose to nourish the most emaciated aspect of people’s spiritual lives—their imaginations.

Traditionally discipleship has focused upon two areas—knowledge and skills. Churches have poured enormous energy into communicating knowledge about God through preaching, classes, and small groups. In recent years an increasing number of voices have challenged the effectiveness of information based discipleship. That has resulted in churches shifting their focus to skill driven formation—“how to” have a healthy marriage, share the gospel, or parent difficult teenagers.

However, knowledge and skill based models, while necessary components of spiritual formation, both miss the imaginative aspect of the human spirit. And by ignoring the intuitive capacity of the mind the church has essentially surrendered people’s imaginations to the pop secular culture without a fight.

In his stirring book The Prophetic Imagination, Walter Brueggemann says, “We need to ask if our consciousness and imagination have been so assaulted and co-opted by the royal consciousness [popular culture] that we have been robbed of the courage or power to think an alternative thought.” Those filling the pews every Sunday may be full of information about God, and they may be expertly trained to obey God, but without an imagination enraptured by God they will be powerless to live the life he’s called them to. They simply cannot imagine living any differently than the culture around them.

Without significant re-cultivation and sanctification of the imagination, aided by God’s Spirit, a disciple will be incapable of weeding out sin and living obediently. Oswald Chambers understood this reality. He knew that if “your imagination of God is starved then when you come up against difficulties, you have no power, you can only endure in darkness.”

Thankfully many are coming to recognize the importance of imagination in spiritual formation. Dr. Kevin Vanhoozer, author of The Drama of Doctrine and professor of systematic theology says:

“Imagination has been a dirty word for too long…The imagination enables us to see the parts of the Bible as forming a meaningful whole. But we can go further still. The imagination also enables us to see our lives as part of that same meaningful whole. This is absolutely crucial. Christians don’t need more information about the Bible, trivial or otherwise. What the church needs today is the ability to indwell or inhabit the text.”

Using the imagination to inhabit scripture may seem like a new idea to American evangelicals, but the practice is far from original. Since the middle ages practitioners of Ignatian spirituality have used their imaginations to enter biblical narratives, and Brother Lawrence has instructed Christians for centuries to practice the presence of the Lord with their intuitive senses. The beauty of these ancient models of spiritual formation is that they require no technology, no monstrous church building, not even a digital projector.

On Good Friday we helped people enter the biblical narrative with their imaginations by adapting the traditional stations of the cross into an experiential journey with Jesus from Gethsemane to the grave. While holding a bag of silver coins people contemplated what they valued more than Christ. Children, using a stool if they were too short, lifted a cross suspended from the ceiling while considering if they would have helped Jesus carry his burden. Newcomers jumped as someone nailed a spike into a beam while Isaiah 53 was softly read. Some adults who have known the story since childhood were brought to tears as their imaginations, perhaps for the first time, traveled with Jesus through the suffering.

Ultimately, we do not need multi-sensory events or media saturated worship to engage the imagination. Sometimes we just need the space (devoid of noise and clutter) and the permission (from leaders who affirm the importance of the imagination) to apprehend God and his story intuitively. When biblical knowledge and pragmatic skills are linked once again to an imagination ravished by God, we may finally find the power to obey.

Read more about the imagination's role in spiritual formation in the Fall issue of Leadership.

Posted by Skye Jethani at October 12, 2006 | Comments (15) | TrackBack

October 10, 2006

Preventing the End of the World

The world is shrinking. One can hardly go a day without hearing about events in Iraq, Afghanistan, South Korea, or Israel. Recently leaders from around the world gathered in New York for President Clinton’s Global Initiative Conference to discuss the challenges we face. Pastor and Leadership’s editor-at-large Gordon MacDonald was there.

I was recently invited to the Clinton Global Initiative Conference in New York City by the former president. As far as I know only a handful of evangelicals were present among approximately 1,000 political, business, and cultural leaders.

The CGI Conference is a crossroads of ideas and networking to reduce cultural and political barriers that separate human beings and create the grounds for conflict and disaster. Panel topics included (1) Energy and Climate Challenge; (2) Global Health Issues; (3) Poverty Alleviation; and (4) Mitigating Religious and Ethnic Conflict. They were populated by people like Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, Colin Powell, Rupert Murdoch, Paul Farmer, Kofi Annan, Hamid Karzai, Pervez Musharraf, Bill Gates, and Paul Kagame (president of Rwanda). And I have named only a few.

Amazingly, there was little energy spent on politics. Rather there was an incredibly serious tone, a clear awareness that the world is in greater trouble today than it has ever been.

Some (like the King of Jordan) spoke of the widening rift between the Muslim world and the West in almost prophetic tones. The two cultures are misunderstanding each others’ hurts and aspirations.

Climate change, fresh outbreaks of disease, the lack of basic community health (clean water, vaccines, etc.) are all contributing to a growing frustration that threatens the stability of the entire world. Despite the drastic situation there was a streak of optimism. Perhaps that was because the people at the conference are all entrepreneurs, can-do people who choose to see the opportunities that crisis creates. There was little hand-wringing and a lot of innovative thinking.

I know, all too well, that Bill Clinton is a polarizing name among many Christians. My association with him over these years has lost me any number of friends. Personally, I grew to love him and greatly care for him in the years that I served as a personal adviser. I recall many conversations we had about his post-presidency and the priorities for this period of his life. Since leaving office he has used his amazing ability to convince people of wealth to see their social responsibilities.

Some $7.2 billion has been pledged this year by business leaders and philanthropists in response to the Clinton Foundation Global Initiative. Richard Branson of Virgin Airlines has committed $3 billion over the next ten years to alleviation of pollution. Millions will be invested in research regarding malaria, TB, and AIDS. Laura Bush announced a new water-well program that features a low-tech pump powered by merry-go-rounds that function as children spin them in their play.

I left the CGI conference with several feelings in my heart.

1. I had appreciation for the seriousness with which these people addressed the topics at hand. There was no glitz, no posturing. This conference made me increasingly less interested in who is Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, Christian or Muslim, and far more interested in the question of who wants to save lives and offer hope and human dignity.

2. These people really believe that the end of the world (the end of humanity anyway) is a distinct possibility if these issues are not addressed globally, dramatically, cooperatively. I respect their seriousness. I will probably die before the full effects of our failure to act are felt. But my children will not, and their children will face a greatly diminished world of opportunity and security.

3. I felt that I was with people who have great compassion for the situation of the poor. Yes, to be candid, some of it is motivated monetary self-interest. More than once it was said that dealing with disease and poverty is simply good business. But there was also a great sense of moral responsibility.

4. I saw in my encounters with Muslims and Hindus and Buddhists that we have a lot of learning to do about who these people are. We have fallen into stereotypes which reinforce our positions rather than seek out the points of commonality that lead to partnership on global issues. When a man says to you, “I was raised by a mother who taught me that all things belong to God and that I must handle what is given to me with care and generosity,” and he is a Muslim, I have to stop and ask “what have I been missing all these years?”

5. Finally, I was personally moved by the drastic situation of the poor in our world. One message that kept coming through in the conference—before you get caught up in the big expensive ideas, spend time asking what you yourself can do as an individual. On the way home, I made a little list that began with becoming more disciplined about energy use, and cultivating relationships with people of other faiths.

When I got home, I took out my Bible and re-read Jesus’ words in the synagogue at Capernaum: “The Spirit of the Lord is on me because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He had sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.” The words took on new meaning.

Posted by UrL at October 10, 2006 | Comments (32) | TrackBack

October 9, 2006

Out of Context: Kent Carlson

"Christian leaders have to admit this is the system we have put together. We can't build churches that advertise 'tons of ministries to meet your needs,' then be surprised when people expect us to continually meet their needs."

-Kent Carlson, pastor of Oak Hills Church in Folsom, California
Take from “Cookie Cutter Community” in the Summer 2006 issue of Leadership Journal. To see the quote IN context, you'll need to see the print version of Leadership. To subscribe, click on the cover of Leadership on this page.

Posted by UrL at October 9, 2006 | Comments (8) | TrackBack

October 5, 2006

Catalytic Conversations 2: Rednecks, sovereignty, natural selection, and injustice.

Leadership editor Marshall Shelley is in Atlanta this week for the Catalyst Conference, where almost 10,000 mostly younger leaders of churches are meeting to discuss ministry in today’s culture. Here’s his second report.

Today was the conference’s first full day, and in addition to a solid lineup of speakers (Andy Stanley, Marcus Buckingham, George Barna, John Maxwell, and Gary Haugen), the hit of the day, at least for me since my momma was raised in the hills of eastern Tennessee, was the surprise appearance of comedian Jeff Foxworthy (“If you put your TV that works on top of your TV that doesn’t work, you may be a redneck”).

Foxworthy had traveled to Kenya this past spring with Andy Stanley and some others to visit various ministries. He had fun with the audience pointing out that his definition of “redneck” is “a glorious absence of sophistication,” which applies to many of the key characters in the Bible:

Samson, who grew “the mother of all mullets” and who caught 300 foxes, tied them in pairs with tails tied to a burning torch, and set them loose to burn the fields of their despised neighbors, the Philistines? “Sounds like a redneck.”

How about David, who killed somebody with a slingshot, sneaked into a cave to play a trick on somebody who was going to the bathroom in there, and then spied over the fence on a naked neighbor. “That’s as redneck as it gets.”

Here are some other, less blue-collar, impressions from the day:

Andy Stanley retold the story of Daniel, Nebuchadnezzar’s madness, and Belshazzar's feast, and had everyone repeat the refrain that’s repeated in Daniel 4 and 5: “The Most High is sovereign over the kingdoms of men and gives them to anyone he wishes.” The main takeaways:
1. Leadership is a stewardship.
2. Leadership is temporary.
3. Leaders are accountable.
4. Therefore, be diligent, fearless, and humble.

This was a refreshing opening message at a conference that some of the people sitting around me had criticized in past years for its undercurrent of “If you do ministry the way Andy and John tell you to, your church will grow like theirs.” This clearly acknowledged God's sovereign and unpredictable way of putting unlikely people in leadership.

George Barna preached his message of Revolution, celebrating his impression that “some of the most committed Christ followers aren’t finding a meaningful connection to the local church, so they’re doing church apart from local congregations.” As interviewer Gabe Lyons suggested, Barna came across not as a researcher (even though Barna claims his conclusions are based on research), but as a prophet.

My understanding of the difference between a researcher and a prophet is that a researcher discloses the methodology used for coming to his conclusions. By this definition, Barna must be a prophet.

John Maxwell talked about “natural selection” (my term, not his), that is, the unavoidable inequalities of leadership. People's gifting for leadership isn't all the same. He claimed that anyone can go from a low level to a high level of spirituality because it’s a choice people make. (I'll pass on the theology embedded in that.) But not all people have the potential to be strong leaders, because it’s a gift and a skill. And if a person is a level 2 as a leader, they can work hard and reach a level 4 or 5, but they’ll never become a level 9. Only people who are born as a level 6 or 7 can ever hope to become a level 9.

The implication: if you want to develop strong leaders, don’t waste your time with people of low potential. Focus on those who can reach the higher levels. He cited the example of Jesus, who didn’t spend equal amounts of time with all people, nor even with all the disciples. He focused on the three, then the twelve, then everyone else.

While this may be true, it’s also true that Jesus made sure to spend significant “face time” and “touch time” with the lame, blind, and powerless. IMHO, this is an element often lacking among those who choose to spend their quality time only with those of great leadership potential.

Finally, Gary Haugen of the International Justice Mission brought the most moving presentation of the day, describing his work freeing slaves from captivity and forced labor in south Asia and young girls sold into the sex trade in other parts of the world. He pointed out the Bible’s cry against injustice, which is not some trivial “getting caught in the 10-items-or-less express line at the store behind someone with 13 items.” But injustice is “people with power taking something from people who lack power.” His combination of Christian passion, a former prosecuting attorney’s eye for evidence, and his legal expertise showed us we don’t need to “sink into the paralysis of despair” over the enormity of the problems, but by putting what we can offer into God’s hands, injustice can be broken.

He concluded with the story of a young girl, taken from her home and forced to work in a Southeast Asia brothel. After collecting the evidence and working with the right authorities, agents of the International Justice Mission were able to free her and return her to her family. On the wall of the room where she had been so unjustly used, the girl had scratched these verses from Psalm 27:

The Lord is my light and my salvation—whom shall I fear?
The Lord is the stronghold of my life—of whom shall I be afraid?
When evil men advance against me to devour my flesh, when my enemies and my foes attack me, they will stumble and fall.
Though an army besiege me, my heart will not fear; though war break out against me, even then will I be confident.

I don't think I'll ever read those verses in the same way again.

Much to think about today, and much to live out.

Posted by Marshall Shelley at October 5, 2006 | Comments (9) | TrackBack

October 4, 2006

Catalytic Conversations: A beautiful and messy kingdom.

Leadership editor Marshall Shelley is in Atlanta this week for the Catalyst Conference, where 9,000 mostly younger leaders of churches are meeting to discuss ministry in today’s culture. Here’s his first report.

The conference officially begins tomorrow. Today was filled with “labs,” 15 seminars on topics ranging from “Passion” (led by pastors Eugene Peterson, Craig Groeschel, and Mark Buchanan) to “Culture” (writers Andy Crouch and Lauren Winner, and the National Endowment for the Arts’ Erik Lokkesmoe) to “Mission” (Shane Claiborne, Mike Foster, and Gary Haugen).

Right now I’m sitting in the balcony of the Performing Arts Center, where in a few minutes an informal “unplugged” session will feature a conversation between neo-church pastors Chris Seay of Ecclesia in Houston and Rick McKinley of Imago Dei Community Church in Portland, Oregon, and a Rwandan pastor whose name I don’t know.

I heard McKinley for the first time this afternoon when he presented a lab on “This Beautiful Mess: a conversation on the Kingdom.” Most people, especially the Catalyst crowd, know McKinley as “the pastor of the church where Donald Miller of ‘Blue Like Jazz’ goes.” So I was somewhat surprised that Miller’s name was never mentioned during the introduction or the hour-long session. But McKinley didn’t need any borrowed credibility.

To the crowd of 300 or so, he offered a concise and provocative discussion of the relationship of the church to the Kingdom of God. This was theology, imminently practical theology.

“As pastors, we are tempted to build the church,” he said. “So we send out postcards to targeted Zip codes and we promote church programs.” But that misses the point, he argued. “Our job isn’t to build the church. We’re supposed to BE the church, and build the kingdom.” He emphasized that the kingdom is to be experienced NOW, on earth, as Christians exemplify godly living, but he also pointed out, as the recent school shootings demonstrate, that the kingdom is also “not yet.” God’s kingdom won’t be realized in its fullness as long as such sin characterizes our world.

He identified why many U.S. churches don’t “get” the kingdom. The first reason is our individualistic culture. Ours is a “me and Jesus” spiritual life, disconnected from Creation, environment, relationships, and our surrounding community. Another reason is our tendency toward dualism: church vs. culture; sacred vs. secular; spiritual vs. physical. And ignoring the integration of those elements.

McKinley acknowledges the importance of Christ’s atonement for the forgiveness of individuals, but as he emphasized, “The best expression of the church is NOT what happens on Sunday morning. It’s what happens in the world during the week. And that’s not something you can market.”

His most provocative statements focused on the Christian’s calling to love their neighbors, even if those neighbors don’t respond to Christ or clean up their act. He told of his church’s messy efforts to love those with addictions, mental illnesses, and other conditions that aren’t easily cleaned up.

“We’re not called to change people’s behavior; we’re called to love them whether they change or not. It’s up to God to change them.”

After the lab, hallway conversations were discussing how you can “love the addicted” without “enabling” their dysfunction and thus perpetuating their addiction.

If this is indicative of the level of conversation, this year’s Catalyst is embracing both theology and practice, and getting to the heart of the Christian calling.

Posted by Marshall Shelley at October 4, 2006 | Comments (4) | TrackBack

October 3, 2006

Pastoral Ambition: Does success chip away at our souls?

In the summer issue of Leadership we told the story of Oak Hills Church in Folsom, California. Over six years Oak Hills jettisoned its consumer-driven methods to focus more on spiritual formation and deeper community. Today, the leaders of the church are pleased with their radical turnaround despite the turmoil it caused and the thousands who left. Kent Carlson is co-senior pastor of Oak Hills Church. In this post he discusses the shift in pastoral values in recent decades, and how we have come to view ambition not as a sin, but an asset.

I want to talk about pastoral ambition. I do so with some apprehension.

A few years ago, our church was "successful" enough for me to be invited to a small, elite group of pastors of large churches who were being mentored by one of the more successful and talented pastors in the country. It was a heady few days for me. I got to mix it up with some of the biggest names and up and coming stars in the large church subculture. I felt very important.

At the end of the conference, I rode back to the airport with the pastor who was at the bottom of the food chain in this little group of successful pastors. He was a bundle of insecurity and authentic enough to admit it to me. He was three years into his church plant and he only had 750 people coming to his church. He didn't feel he had the right to play with the big boys yet. Even back then, in the midst of my most ambitious days, I remember thinking that something is very wrong with a church culture that would make someone like this pastor feel insecure.

Something has happened in the past thirty or so years that has shifted our pastoral ethic from one of faithfulness to one of productivity and success. I believe this has stirred the fires of ambition. Given the nature of our American culture, this doesn't surprise me. It also doesn't surprise me that the battle with ambition will be a ferocious one, for the tendency toward self-absorption plagues every one of us. I just wonder why this is not a front burner item that is being addressed with greater passion in the popular Christian media. It would be so refreshing to hear Christian leaders in some panel discussion copping to the fact that they struggle with it and it often drives their ministry. We all know it's there. If only we could start being honest about it.

Pastoral ambition is not new. Paul, in his letter to the Philippians told us, "Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility, value others above yourselves, not looking to your own interests, but each of you to the interests of others."

Christian spiritual giants down through the centuries have pounded away aggressively on this theme. For example, that Puritan divine, Richard Baxter, said it this way: "Take heed lest, under the pretense of diligence in your calling, you be drawn to earthly-mindedness, and excessive cares or covetous designs for rising in the world."

I walk into this issue with loads of apprehension. There is no way to talk about pastoral ambition without sounding (and, I suspect, being) judgmental. After all, who am I to know the thoughts and intents of another person's heart? The inner motivations that drive all of us are a tangled web of sincerity and self-absorption, nobility and narcissism. This topic is, therefore, a land of cheap shots, often entered into by those intellectually lazy and simplistic souls who enjoy building straw men of those with whom they disagree and then tear them down.

In addition, I would like to make it clear, that I would rather follow an ambitious pastor than a lazy one. I would rather follow someone who wants to change the world than one who simply wishes to throw stones. And while many pastors who are leading thriving ministries are passionate, sincere, hungry for God, and brimming with integrity, I must raise the question. Is our ambition godly?

For more than twenty years I have attended church conferences. I have observed as we sized each other up to see how quickly we could find out who had the highest attendance, the largest staff, the biggest budget, the most property. The secret that hardly anyone talks about is that most of us want to win the "largest church game." Or at least make a good showing. I am convinced from first hand experience, as well as from paying close attention to the darkness of my own heart, that if all-of-the-sudden thought bubbles appeared over all our heads, we would all fall to the ground in repentance.

I am convinced that personal pastoral ambition, and a pastoral ethic centered around productivity and success is brutal to our souls and destructive to the souls of the people we lead. I believe there is a better way. But it requires us to walk right into the messiness of our own ambitious hearts, ready to die to those ambitions. We must become skilled at detecting the odor of personal ambition, then flee from it as if the church's future depends on it. For I believe it does.

Posted by UrL at October 3, 2006 | Comments (64) | TrackBack