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?

How God Works

God wants the opposite of whatever I want. After some time processing with friends this morning that’s the statement I came to. It is a statement of the way I view God. Now before you call me a heretic and pull out a Bible to throw verses at me, let me clarify. My study of Scripture and my past experience tell me this is not true, and I believe that. But on a deeper level, one I can’t just decide to change, I live as though it is true.

Here’s how it plays out in my life right now—I assume because we want to move and do what God has called us to do that we won’t be able to. At the very least we will have to scrape to get by in Denver for another year or two, working odd jobs and never having any time together as a family. The moment I began hoping our house would sell so we could move when I finish at Southern Gables was the moment it became a lock that it wouldn’t happen.

This view contradicts my own experience. I look back on the past five years of our life and I can give many examples of how God has answered our prayers. It’s easy to believe in God’s faithfulness in the past, not quite as easy in the present.

I don’t think I’m the only one who deals with this view of God, and it has a couple disastrous outcomes. 1) We don’t believe prayer is “powerful and effective.” When we start to believe that God wants the opposite of what we want prayer becomes impotent. I pray for our house to sell, but I don’t believe that prayer makes any difference. I pray, but I don’t “wait with expectation” to see what God will do. 2) We lose joy. If the God we serve wants to rob us of the things we desire, even when He gives us the desire (and here I don’t mean possessions, he may want to rob us of those for our own good, but even kingdom-focused things), then it is difficult to take joy in Him or in serving Him.

I have begun praying that the Holy Spirit will remove this view of God from me. It might seem ironic that I’m praying for something because I often don’t believe prayer makes a difference, but I have seen God change me in the past and believe He can do it again. I want to believe whole-heartedly that God is a good Father who loves to give us good gifts. And I want to be filled with expectation and hope when I pray.

Theological Humility

Every now and then I just have to get something off my chest. I just finished browsing a blog discussion about women in ministry on the Jesus Creed blog. There were about 150 comments! But in reading it I became more and more frustrated with a couple people promoting the traditionalist position on this issue. My frustration didn't stem from their position so much as an assumption that was driving their comments.

Stated simply--God gave me a better brain which is why I am 100% right and you're completely deluded!

They made comments that can be summarized as--"Why don't you go read the Bible?" Or "You just care about your position so much you read into the Bible whatever you want." I am so sick of theological arrogance like this. When people are seriously engaging the Scriptures to see what they're saying and then are told they're wrong without any reason other than, "I read the Bible right and you don't," it just drives me nuts! I am all for engaging each other's opinions and having debates about issues. And I don't believe that everyone's opinion is equally close to truth, but we still need some humility in how we engage each other.

Despite what people may say we cannot disregard the culture in which the Bible was written. We cannot disregard the assumptions we bring with us to our reading of the Scriptures today (we all have them!). We cannot disregard church history (though that doesn't mean it's always right). We cannot disregard the way the Holy Spirit works through the body of Christ as a whole (communal knowledge versus individual knowledge).

The reality we live with is that no one will ever have an exact grasp on truth. We do our best and continually strive to understand the revelation God has given us, but we're just too imperfect to flippantly tell others they're wrong.

Worship

The past couple days I was on a retreat with the church where I currently serve. We had a great time together, but fear not, I’m going to refrain from giving the details. What I want to talk about was an insight I had into the corporate worship of the church (and by this I don’t just mean music, but all elements that contribute to worshipping God when we come together as a larger body).

There are nearly an infinite number of things to consider when it comes to this topic—many of which have been beaten to death over the years. What role does emotion play? Which songs should we sing? What should their content be? Which forms of music are appropriate? Who makes these decisions? How do we gauge the appropriateness of our worship? Does experience flow from content or vice versa or neither? What role do aesthetics play? I suppose the questions could go on forever.

What I realized as we had an in depth discussion about many of these things is that it is very difficult to come to a consensus on what is most important and how that looks. I think there are two main reasons for this. 1) I think this one might be the most neglected reason—things like the worship of a larger body of believers are more than the sum of their parts. You can’t dissect worship, put it back together, and lose nothing in the process. It is so much about the relationships between the parts. Our relationship with God as individuals and as a group, and our relationships with each other. There is so much importance in these relationships and what goes on there that just looking at the parts is like looking at the piano part of a movie’s soundtrack, the printed script, and its costumes and then assuming you have fully grasped the movie. 2) God has created us with such great diversity that we will all have nuances to what we believe about how to faithfully worship God—even among those who are completely committed to true discipleship. We’re just different. The challenge is to learn to use these differences to create greater beauty rather than disputes.

So those were some thoughts. Your thoughts?

Let's Talk About the Emerging Church...

...and we can start by discussing your thoughts on this Christianity Today article.

Five Streams of the Emerging Church
Key elements of the most controversial and misunderstood movement in the church today.
by Scot McKnight

Emerging and Missional--Part Two

Based on the reading I've done in both emerging and missional literature, and conversations I've had with people who claim to be both, it seems there are some fundamental differences between the emerging and missional churches, but that they are not mutually exclusive and many people are bringing the two together.

It is much easier to deduce the basic principle of the missional church. As Alan Hirsch says, "the church's true and authentic organizing principle is mission." This is the starting point for anything that can rightly be included under the label of missional church. The focus is on a spiritual and physical redemption of individuals and the world. Things like community, worship, gathering, prayer, service, and study sprout up through the soil of mission and in its support. This does not mean that any of these things are purely utilitarian, but the Christian life is a whole that grows best in the context of mission. It is mission that shapes our prayer life to be more about God's kingdom than ourselves, worship to overflow from the fullness of a heart that is seeing God at work, community that is forged in the heat of shared endeavor. All of these things are a part of what it means to be the people of God in this world, but they are informed by mission--it is their context.

The missional church also has an inherently anti-institutional bent. As institutions grow they take more work, time, and resources to support themselves. All of this can naturally lead to an internal focus, which is anti-missional. There are some institutional churches that are very intentional about being missional, but institution has not proven to be the most conducive setting for fostering mission. (I would also say that being anti-institutional doesn't automatically make you missional. I think less institution fits better with mission but neither necessitates the other.)

The emergent church is a little harder to pin down. From my reading it seems to be more interested in engaging the predominant Western theology and pushing its boundaries. This has led to some wonderful discussion, but the outcome of it isn't always clear.

The emerging church movement also seems to fit better with the institutional church than the missional movement. There is more discussion of how to tweak and work within existing forms to make them more artistic, participatory, and engaging.

Both the emerging and missional church movements are disproportionately fueled by people under 40, but there are strong voices in each who are older. It will be interesting to see how each of these movements continues to take shape in the future.

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.