Organic Church

In the last week I've been reading the book Organic Church by Neil Cole. It's been out for a while, but I never read it largely because of the cheesy cover and the cheesy picture of Neil in the back (I know I'm so fickle). I started reading it because I got a copy for free, but had I known what was in it I would have gladly shelled out some cash. This is one of the best books I've read in a long time.

Cole provides a powerfully prophetic message for all Christians. It is true that he promotes a very non-traditional approach to church (which I resonate with), but what he writes is not focused on the form of church so much as it is focued on calling us back to Christ. Here is a tasty sample from the book.

All of us invested in the Kingdom of God long deeply to be a part of a spontaneously growing and multiplying movement where God is doing the work. We read the book of Acts, and our spirits scream to be a part of something like that. When we hear reports of the Kingdom expanding and lives changing overseas in China or India, our souls are touched in a deep place that we seldom feel, and it reminds us that our own experience is so empty. It is unfortunate that we sacrifice our heart’s desire for lesser things. The reality is that as long as we invest in human-driven efforts, we will never see what we all really want to see…There is a risk involved in seeking a spontaneous movement. We must trust God to do His part. We must be willing to place ourselves in a position where, if he does not show up, we will be seen as complete fools. Most have not been willing to take that risk. We are often afraid that God’s reputation will be tarnished. This fear is not from heaven but hell. We will never see the dramatic power of God if we are too afraid to be placed in a position that requires His deliverance.

Do we even know what it would look like to put ourselves in such a place? Are we so comfortable that we wouldn't know how to be risky if we wanted to?

Reimagining Evangelism

It's no news that the Christian culture sometimes doesn't do the best job at engaging nonbelievers, and there's a pretty obvious culture clash in America. A recent article from The Christian Science Monitor tells one story of a man seeking to build bridges with those without faith.

Jim Henderson of Off the Map (please check the site out if you haven't) is a former pastor who realized that most people never come to church and now is on a mission to help other Christians realize why evangelistic efforts turn people away. If nothing else, his resources are a great discussion starter and thought-provoker.

FaithVisuals.com actually has a free, downloadable video from Off the Map called Three Minutes With Three Lost People.

The Chinese Church

Last week I made a connection that has encouraged me about the missional church movement. As you probably know, the Chinese underground church has grown rapidly--impressively--over the last decades.

The Chinese church forms cell-like structures because they have to. The government's persecution and interference have forced them underground, but they've stayed connected and networked. These Chinese house churches simply can't become a religious institution with "baggage"--buildings, famous leaders, theological and political debates. They have to "travel light," as Alan Hirsch says in The Forgotten Ways.

And the movement has spread because they're driven to prayer, and the Holy Spirit, and the responsibility and passion for sharing Christ comes back to the individual and away from an institution.

I see some connections here with how a missional church usually works. We can learn alot from the Chinese church--and come to think of it, it's not too different from the early church, is it?

Liquid Church

I just finished this book after having it recommended by Drew Moser. Pete Ward does a good job of interacting with philosophical, theological, sociological, and practical issues in relation to being "liquid church" (his term for thinking of church primarily in regard to relationships and connections, not congregation). But the thing that has me thinking the most is his take on how the gospel should interact with our current culture of consumerism. Ward writes--

People who are looking for God will connect to the network because it offers what they want. In this sense liquid church locates itself firmly in the consumer nature of society. It seeks to offer the reality and fullness of God in a form that people want. There is no sellout involved, no dumbing down of the message. In fact, liquid church will remain committed to an exacting orthodoxy and a committed theology...As solid church has tried to adapt to modernity, it has adopted ways of using contemporary media and communications to package faith and offer it in the marketplace. Liquid church takes some of these changes and pushes them further by taking account of a more fluid market.

Is Christianity reconcilable with consumerism?

Sex God

After enjoying Velvet Elvis and recommending it to many people I was looking forward to Rob Bell's new book Sex God. Now if you're about to make some joke about how this book is about you, you're too late. Unofficial statistics from the Denver Seminary bookstore (David) are that about 63% of people who see the title make that joke.

The book is actually about the connections between sex(uality) and God. Here's my thoughts on it.

The Good

1) As he usually does, Rob (we're on a first name basis, he just doesn't know it) brings out some very interesting points. He spends a lot of time unpacking Hebrew concepts that bring life to biblical concepts.
2) This would be a good book for someone who doesn't have much biblical or Christian theological background. He does a good job giving accessible descriptions of concepts like "oneness."
3) He does a good job working through the submission issue.
4) So often in Christian circles we communicate, "Don't have sex until you're married. God says so and that settles it." But for anything God tells us to do there are good reasons. He wants what's best for us. Rob presents clearly many of the reasons why a Christian sexual ethic is best for us--not just random rules to follow.

The Bad (at least for me)

1) "Our sexuality is all of the ways we strive to reconnect with our world, with each other, and with God." This statement just seems way too broad to me. From this statement and other parts of the book I get the sense he's saying, "anything relational in any fashion is sexual." I suppose you can redefine sexuality in this way, but then what does it really mean? There are some relationships that are sexual and others that aren't. I suppose a relationship with a good friend could be related to sexuality in that it is or isn't sexual based on our sexuality, but now I'm confusing myself!
2) This seems to be a collection of a number of things he wanted to talk about that aren't all that connected. He strays from his stated purpose for the book. Although assuming the broad view of sexuality in #1 I suppose it's all related.
3) There wasn't much substance. I think some of the concepts are great but probably could have been covered in an article or two. There really wasn't enough to warrant a book.

So having said all that--it's a quick enough read that it's worth picking up. I'd love to hear reactions to the book as you read it.

Emergent Discission

In a post on the Jesus Creed blog, Scot McKnight summarizes a book called Inside the Organic Church. Especially interesting to me is that Bob Whitesel, the author of the book, found in his study of 12 "organic" churches that they were very orthodox in their theology. One of the things emergent has become known for it pushing the theological envelope, so I thought this was an interesting and encouraging finding. Check out the full summary on the Jesus Creed blog.

Faithful Invitation

One of the issues the missional church must deal with (and any church for that matter) is how we are to faithfully pursue the conversion of those who are not “in Christ.” Do people belong before they believe (a well-worn conversation)? Is it our job to make Christianity attractive? What are we converting people to? There are many biblical episodes that can inform our discussion, but one I don’t hear used very often is how the Jesus’ first disciples came to follow him.

In the second half of John 1, we’re told of the first four who follow Christ. In that story it is striking how the commitment of the prospective followers is nurtured through an invitation to be with Jesus personally. In the words of the writer, there is an offer to “come and see.” Jesus extends this offer to Andrew and his companion, Andrew brings his brother Simon to Jesus to see, and Philip extends the invitation to the skeptical Nathanael. In each case these men base their commitment to Jesus on a personal encounter with him.

Today, Jesus does not live with us in bodily form, so we cannot invite people to “come and see Jesus” in a personal, bodily way. But the invitation for people to come and see is no less important and I believe we give this invitation in two primary ways. 1) We invite people to see Jesus in his body—us. The difficult thing with this is that we must be manifesting the true nature of our master in our actions. If we are not faithful to Christ then we invite people to see Jesus in our midst but do great damage because they do not really see him. So it is imperative that we live our lives—individually and corporately—in ever-increasing faithfulness to Christ. 2) We invite people to see Jesus in the Scriptures. The Word of God has tremendous power to allow people to have an encounter with Jesus (Isaiah 55:10-11 and Hebrews 4:12).

As the church we must invite people to “come and see” Jesus and allow him to transform them.

For some great reading in this same direction check out The Insider.

Leadership Paradigms--Part 2

Because the mechanistic model of leadership is so pervasive I have always assumed that that's just how things work. I had never questioned the paradigm. But recently I have been captured by a different paradigm of leadership, one I'll call an organic model (I know that is an overused buzzword and I'm not trying to join in the river of everything organic, but I didn't want to take the time to come up with something else right now). Instead of being akin to a machine, this model could better be thought of as a river--something fairly stable, but capable of both rapid and gradual change. In the words of Margaret Wheatley, a river doesn't care so much what it looks like as it does about flowing. A few characteristics of this leadership paradigm.

1. Leadership based in spiritual authority: Instead of having leadership that originates in a position, leadership is gained naturally as people follow someone. Thus, authority in this paradigm is based on influence. We have all been around people who were leaders whether they were officially recognized as leaders or not. There is a woman at my current church named D who has no official position but has tremendous influence. She has it because of her integrity, concern for others, spiritual maturity, honesty, and knowledge. She has spiritual authority, not institutional authority. I would contend this type of leadership is much more biblical.

2. Leadership is more about preparation than planning: The problem with strategic planning is that we plan based on the present--a present that will no longer exist by the time our plan is scheduled to bloom. A plan from today meant to transform tomorrow cannot work in a rapidly changing world. The other problem with planning is that it allows us to figure out what we will do so that our actions don't have to stem from who we are. In order to react and lead faithfully we must be people of integrity who will naturally make godly decisions, even when we can't plan what we will do. This fits with the biblical theme of actions flowing from the heart.

3. Disequilibrium and change are welcome: In most organizations it is believed that a state of equilibrium and stability is ideal. Even if we believe this has worked in the past there are significant problems with it now because of how quickly our world changes. Nothing can be counted on to remain the same from month to month or even day to day. Disequilibrium and change are a certainty in our world, so when our paradigm of leadership views them as things to be averted rather than embracing and working with them, failure of some kind will likely result. Working toward stability can also stifle creativity within a people. "When leaders strive for equilibrium and stability by imposing control, constricting people's freedom and inhibiting local change, they only create the conditions that threaten the organization's survival." (Margaret J. Wheatley, Leadership and the New Science)

To keep this from getting even longer I will just list a few other features of organic leadership without describing them--1) The more people who have access to information, the more healthy the system will be 2) Freedom is essential 3) Change doesn't have to be controlled.

I'll close with one more quote from Leadership and the New Science that made me excited about leadership. "Organizations [including the church] lack this kind of faith, faith that they can accomplish their purposes in varied ways and that they do best when they focus on intent and vision, letting forms emerge and disappear."

The Missionary Congregation, Leadership, and Liminality

After reading The Forgotten Ways, I shuffled through the bibliography (which took a few minutes since there were 87 sources) and picked out some books for further reading. I just completed the first of the ones I ordered and it was great. The book is called The Missionary Congregation, Leadership, and Liminality by Alan Roxburgh. I know, catchy title.

There were some concepts in the book that I hadn't been exposed to before that were really helpful in my continuing pursuit of understanding where our culture stands and how the church can best engage that faithfully. Below are a few of my favorite quotes.

"This role [pastor] is based on the cultural assumption of a church in the center of a society where people come from their public lives for spiritual instruction."

"The church's understanding of its changed social location will determine its praxis."

"Throw up a thousand spires higher than the Sears Tower, but they no longer have the power to attract."

"One fears that in North America, rather than hearing this call of the Spirit to embrace and listen to the voice of God in a place of strangeness, the churches are continuing to work hard at rediscovering modes of existence and symbols of power that will move them back to an imaginary center."

The book is only 67 pages long and well worth reading. But if you can find it at a library I'd do it. Those 67 pages are $14.95!

Why Does the Church Exist?

In The Present Future by Reggie McNeal, he states that "The church was never intended to exist for itself." That's a pretty simple statement, but it's also the most difficult statement for many Christians today.

Think about what you often hear church people talk about (and I've definitely been more than guilty of this): I didn't like the music today. The sermon was boring. The children's program is not as good as it used to be. It's too seeker-sensitive; what about me? The color of the carpet is awful. I have a ministry to promote, but they won't let me. There's no one my age here.

We've forgotten why we exist. We need to get back to being God's redemptive instrument for the world. God invites us to join Him. And not just the pastors and other leaders in the church. You. Me. All of us.

As Bill Hybels says, "The church is the only hope of the world."