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.

Who's Purpose 3

I want to wrap up my thoughts on our current church culture and historically American values with a look at wealth. Here's some of what Scripture has to say on the topic.

"Those who love money never have enough; those who love wealth are never satisfied with their income. This too is meaningless." Ecclesiastes 5:10
"No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money." Matthew 6:24
"Then some soldiers asked him, "And what should we do?" He replied, "Don't extort money and don't accuse people falsely--be content with your pay." Luke 3:14
"And God's grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time, those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need."

It would take a very long post to lay out all the Bible has to say on this very important topic, but these verses illustrate the biblical witness on a few key points. Aquiring wealth has always been a central tenent of the American dream. Entrepreneuership, upward mobility, and a solid portfolio are all things to be coveted. I'm just not sure Jesus' values would match our infatuation with wealth. A few observations about America, the church, and money--

First, in American culture and in the church, money is a very private and personal thing. The fruit of wealth is often seen in houses, vehicles, boats, and other luxuries, but don't ever ask someone how much they made last year or how much they give to Kingdom efforts--that's too personal. The passage in Acts doesn't say that everyone knew how much everyone else had, but they must have had some awareness. The wealthier people knew when there were others in their community who didn't have enough and made sure they were provided for. Now churches are big enough that we can find ways to hide from the needs of others. Our wealth and the way we use it are like our sex life--private knowledge that we keep to ourselves.

Second, Americans and the American church are never content with their current level of financial resources (Ecc and Luke). Norman Rockefeller was once asked, "How much money is enough?" He replied, "Just a little bit more." This summaries the American view of wealth well. Unfortunately it doesn't seem this is often much different in the church, it's just masked more carefully. More money is desired in the name of better programs, which we assure people will mean better ministry. I've never heard a church talk about their excesses and scale back. Rather, attention is given to how just a little more money would solve all the problems. We have adopted this mentality of finding purpose in the pursuit of just a little more wealth.

Finally, Americans have made wealth a god. We work long hours to provide as many things as possible for our families, but we remove ourselves from their lives in the process. We compare ourselves to whoever is one rung up on the financial ladder and try to figure out how we can match them, only to look up again when we get there. We assume more money to buy more things will fulfill us, only to be left empty and wanting. The god of wealth has also invaded our churches. We give preferential treatment to those who put a big check in the plate. We drool over the large houses and vehicles of congregants, never imagining that we should question their stewardship.

Our nation's history and values have taught us that wealth is good, period. This may be the most difficult area for us to embrace Kingdom values, because it will cost us comfort and status.

Who's Values Part One--Sexuality

I've been playing with an idea now for a couple weeks and am really interested in feedback (I know commenting on this blog isn't of highest importance for everyone, but I'd love to get in some face to face conversations about this).

My basic premise is this--the sins the evangelical church has been most critical of are the ones that have been most strongly opposed in our nation's history. The ones we let slide (and sometimes even promote) are the correspond to the values applauded in our nation's history. I will deal with four issues here by way of example--sexuality, alcohol consumption, wealth, and pride. Because this takes some time to develop I'm just going to take one per post.

Sexuality
I recently had a friend who was asked to marry a couple who claimed to be Christians. He asked them if they were living together and they responded that they were. He told them that if they didn't live separately until the wedding that he would not do a Christian ceremony. He would still do the ceremony (and believed that they were Christians who had gotten off track in this area), but he would do the same thing he does for people who are not Christians.

Until the sexual revolution of the 1960s the United States was a fairly conservative nation in regard to sexuality. I don't pretend people weren't having affairs, premarital sex. and homosexual sex, but these were not things people broadcast. To a large extent they were looked down upon, even outside the church (and in what I'm trying to develop that is actually more important). Then the era of free love came along and blew up the conventional sensibilities of the nation in this area. At the time, many looked down on those who led and participated in the revolution that shifted how we think about sexuality. But over the years our nation's culture has come to accept and even glorify promiscuous and liberated sexuality.

But not so with the church. We would like to point to the Bible and say that we take a strong stand on issues of sexuality because it instructs us to do so--and I don't dispute that it does. However, we don't take a strong stand on all the issues the Bible speaks to, even those it speaks to strongly, so why this one? For many years we were able to stand with our nation in affirming a certain sexual ethic. Our nation has shifted but we have remained steadfast. It seems even that may be changing.

To come back to my friend. I don't think he did the wrong thing. He took a stand on an important topic. And he did it out of love because he knew the people he was dealing with. It made them do some reflecting and helped them realize they had stopped trying to please Christ above all else. So my example of him is not a negative one, I'm just asking the question, why are we so strong on this area where sin can manifest itself?

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?

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!

What the Coffeeshop Teaches Us

As much as I like my once-a-week Starbucks gift to myself, I treasure those more sporadic stops at my local indy coffeeshop. It's easier to go there and stay there for hours. I often choose that coffeeshop when I have a friend I want to spend some quality time with. I meet more people there than I ever would at Starbucks.

I love this article that Leadership journal published about what the church can learn about the coffeeshop (also love it because this coffeeshop is MY coffeeshop and I know the author and his wife):

Coffeeshop Connections
What one pastor is learning, as a part-time barista, about relationship and discipleship.
by David Swanson

Here's my favorite excerpt:

If we believe the church community is the sum of its people, and if we believe that relationships are not something that can be programmed, then we do well to consider how to create margins in church life for spontaneous relational moments, similar to those that attract people to the coffeeshop.

Convenience vs. Relationship

One of the things I appreciate about the missional church conversation that's going on right now is the critique of materialism and consumerism in the West. It is especially disturbing how our culture functions in a way that places products over people.

One of the specific ways this is communicated is through chain stores. You can go to a Starbucks, or Gap, or Aldo (that reference is for you Cory) almost anywhere and know what you are getting in terms of quality, selection, and price. We tend to go to whichever of these chain outlets is closest at the moment because we can get the product we need without travelling to a specific location.

The problem with this is that it is impossible to develop relationships with workers or patrons of a store if you seldom go to the same location. We consume the product without a thought to how this impacts our ability to form relationships. In the past there were only one or two choices for where to purchase things and the same people worked at the same times so relationships were inevitable.

It is important for us to consider how our consumer choices will impact our ability to build relationship and thereby impact people for the Kingdom. Being consistent at certain locations, even when it's not convenient, is an important part of not marginalizing relationships.