(Not so) Simple Church

I read Thom Rainer’s Simple Church a few months ago. I liked his proposal of having a clear, simple model of making disciples that was shared by the whole congregation (“congregation” is that a Baptist like Rainer means by “church”) so that everything it does is aligned with that model. Compared to the way disciples are accidentally made in so many traditional churches, I found the idea of a simple process attractive.

But I couldn’t quite bring myself to believe it.

First, the sub-title of the book claims too much – “Returning to  God’s Process for Making Disciples.” When I read the book, I found a very modern, rationalized, linear model for making disciples – a veritable disciple-making factory. When I look at the way Jesus made disciples in the Gospels – and if I want to discover God’s way, who else ought I to consult? – I don’t see anything as neat and simply reproducible as what I see Rainer proposing. Jesus approached each of his disciples differently. He didn’t run them through a program – even a simple one. He took them with him so they could see what he did and learn to trust him and his way of life.

Second, while I understand the attraction of a simple, linear process, I’ve seen too many who have become disciples by other means. One of the images I use when I talk about the life of discipleship is crossing three lines. As disciples of Jesus we cross a line of commitment to Jesus, a line of commitment to our own spiritual growth (that is, we aren’t just babies waiting for someone to take care of us), and a line of responsibility for the spiritual growth of others. It makes perfect sense to imagine that a disciple would progress in exactly that order. It’s an order commonly adopted in churches – we can see it in the Saddleback baseball diamond with its CLASS system.

But things don’t always work that way. I’ve seen people drawn to faith by starting at the “end” – by joining in ministry toward others. If we ask them why, chances are they won’t say, “This is a natural fulfillment of my love for Jesus.” Rather, they might just say, “I see the need, I have the ability to do something to meet it, so I do it.” While a few might have the thought of earning favor with God through their actions, there is no necessary reason to suppose such a thought.

Todd Hunter argues this same point in Christianity Beyond Belief: Following Jesus for the Sake of Others.  He says,

We are accustomed to seekers following this model: first they believe Christian truth,then they join our churches, and then they take on our practices and behaviors. I suspect, though, that upon reflection we may see that people have come to faith in more varied ways. Today many people are starting at the ‘end’ and practicing their way into the faith. It seems to be working just fine. Others start in the middle by joining a Christian community before they believe.

What happens when we insist on a particular assembly line method of making disciples? At the best, we’ll make some disciples – which is far better than simply limping along making none. But we’ll also miss many people. I think we’ll also miss God, since God appears to lead people to Jesus by multiple means.

So where can we have simplicity? Where can we have a clearly shared model of disciple-making with which we align all our ministries? Put briefly, I think we need to have three elements present at every stage, even if one is in the forefront. We need people to keep in view that Jesus is the center of all we do. We need people to keep in view that Jesus joins us together for his purposes. And we need people to keep in view that his purposes are not merely for our sake, but for the sake of the world.

Posted in Discipleship, Evangelism, Simple Church | 4 Comments

A Couple Random Thoughts

Facebook keeps asking me if I want to be a “fan of God.” If by “fan of God” it means “love God,” then I suppose being a “fan of God” is natural for a Christian. But put into a context of being a “fan” of just about everything, being a “fan of God” seems to trivialize God. Are any of you Facebook “fans of God?” What do you think about it?

With the advent of Johnny Depp’s new role as John Dillinger, he’s thinking about the role of Dillinger. A couple of weeks ago I read that Depp said something about maybe people need to stand up to authority today like Dillinger did in his day. I understand that there is a certain class of people who think standing up to authority is the thing to do. That class of people seems to be more often of Democratic than Republican persuasion. That’s why it amazes me that Depp would look at Dillinger standing up against authority (FDR’s administration) and suggest that people need to stand up similarly today (when again the Democrats rule both Congress and the Executive branch). Does that strike anyone else as odd?

Posted in Barack Obama, Current events, Movies | 1 Comment

WYSIWYG?

Check out the picture at Bad Astronomy.

What do you think of it? Do you see the blue and green spirals? Did you read the explanation that both spirals are really the same color – that our senses are deceived by the proximity of the other colors?

At the end of the post the author says,

“So the next time someone swears they saw Jesus, or a UFO, or a ghost, show them this picture. What you see in life is absolutely and provably not what you get.”

It is true in this case that what you see – blue and green spirals – is not what you get. Assuming, of course, that by “get” you mean something like “an accurate representation of reality,” or “what is really there.”

We have enough experience with optical (and other kinds of) illusions, that we know that sometimes our senses are fooled. But are the reports of our senses “absolutely and provably” illusory all the time? Do we never get what we see?

When my wife cooked dinner last night, the results sure looked like sausage, sauteed squash, salad and pieces of fruit. My sense of touch – through the instrument of my fork – gave further evidence supporting my sight. As I put pieces of the food into my mouth I received confirmation of what I had seen. This was indeed sausage, squash, salad, and fruit.

But perhaps that’s not the level on which I should look for an illusion. I didn’t actually see my wife cook anything. Well, I saw her stirring the squash for a moment, but I didn’t see her cut it up, apply the heat, and bring it from beginning to completion. Maybe it was only an illusion that she cooked it. Maybe it was really one of the children.

We had a surprise birthday party for my son last summer. One of his friends is named Jesus. I have seen Jesus on more than one occasion. I have spoken with Jesus on several occasions. I have seen pictures of Jesus. Am I delusional? Is he illusory? Am I not “getting” what I see when I’m in the presence of Jesus?

But then maybe he means the other Jesus – Jesus of Nazareth, the fellow born in Bethlehem, who gathered disciples, died in Jerusalem, rose from the dead, ascended to the Father. Is he suggesting that that Jesus  is an illusion? Or is he claiming that any seeing of this Jesus is necessarily an illusion? Or perhaps he would limit the illusiveness of Jesus to current seeings of Jesus. Perhaps folks like Peter and Pilate really did see Jesus. But since he isn’t here now, we can’t see him now, therefore any purported seeings of Jesus are illusory.

Is the optical illusion mentioned at the Bad Astronomy site naturally occurring – or was it purposefully created to be an optical illusion? If I look at that and see an optical illusion, am I getting what I see? Is there a difference between seeing an optical illusion and seeing a picture of an optical illusion?  If I look at a tortilla and see a pattern of coloration that makes me think of Jesus, am I seeing Jesus? Or am I seeing a pigmented tortilla? If I look at a canvas and see a pattern of coloration that makes me think of Jesus, am I seeing Jesus? Or am I seeing a pigmented canvas?

I reason that the optical illusion at Bad Astronomy was humanly constructed. I reason also that the article/discussion accompanying it was humanly constructed. If I see these as humanly constructed am I seeing an illusion? I certainly don’t see a person in the act of composing either, but given the effects I take them to be the work of some human, just as I took last night’s dinner to be the work of my wife. Just as I take some of the things I’ve seen in life as the work of Jesus. If I can do the former two, why can’t I do the latter?

I am part of a socio/temporal system in which I understand how internet content happens. I have seen spam and filler that is computer generated. In its form it looks real. But if I try to make sense of it, the best sense is as spam or filler. It’s not “real” content. Lots and lots of us inhabit this socio/temporal system and have no trouble sharing an assessment of these kinds of things.

Fewer people share the socio/temporal system of my household. Given the ages of my children (21, 18, 13) it would not be unreasonable to think that one of them actually cooked last night’s supper. But since I am an inhabitant of that system, I know that my wife and I cook more than 99% of the meals. Since I did not cook the supper, my inference that she cooked the meal is not shocking. Since many other people inhabit similar socio/temporal systems, I’d guess my inference is not shocking to them either.

But what about seeing Jesus? I confess that I don’t inhabit a socio/temporal systems that inclines me to see Jesus in tortillas, fried eggs or clouds. While I can imagine looking at each of these, observing patterns of coloration or shaping, and thinking, ‘That looks like Jesus,” I would take this experience as more aptly called an act of imagination than an act of seeing Jesus. Again, because of the socio/temporal systems I inhabit, if I see patterns of coloration on a canvas and say, “I see Jesus” – as opposed, for instance, to saying “I see George Washington,” or, “I see a horse,” or “I see a gently flowing river.” At the same time, depending on the context that asks me to make a report of what I see, I might be happier to say “I see a picture of Jesus,” or “I see Jesus in that picture” than “I see Jesus.”

As a follower of Jesus and as an inhabitant of the socio/temporal system we call the Christian tradition, I sometimes see Jesus. I have not (yet) to my knowledge (I have to be wary considering what Jesus says in Matthew 25) seen Jesus the person as Jesus the person. But because of the judgments and patterns of perception built into this socio/temporal system, I have no trouble saying, “I have seen Jesus,” when I speak of effects that I take to be caused by Jesus’ acts.

Can I be wrong? Or can I have absolute certainty that I have seen Jesus? I don’t think so. I have a pretty high capacity for doubt. Like Descartes, I can imagine circumstances that cause my perceptions to be inaccurate. But I can do that for just about everything. Given my socio/temporal location, I have no reason to take my assessment that the post on the Bad Astronomy site was produced by anything other than a human agent.  Given my socio/temporal location, I have no reason to take my assessment that dinner last night was cooked by my wife as illusory. In the same way, viven my socio/temporal location, I have no reason to take my assessment that I have seen Jesus as illusory.

In the future I might come to judge a particular event that I took to be a seeing of Jesus (or my wife, or of a rainbow, or of a dog) as no such thing. But that would be no reason to eliminate altogether the class of all such seeings.

Posted in Epistemology, Jesus, Perception | Leave a comment

Listening to John Ortberg

The last workshop I went to at the Renovare Conference in San Antonio this past week was a conversation with John Ortberg. I first heard of Ortberg when he was on staff at Willowcreek church. He’s now served as pastor at Menlo Park Presbyterian for a number of years.

Two questions in particular interested me. One person asked how you hold Willowcreek and Renovare together, that is, how do you hold together a hard-charging emphasis on leadership and evangelizing seekers with a deep commitment to spiritual formation? The ethos seems to be very different.

I agree with Ortberg that both emphases are valuable. We need to lead change in organizations: quantitative change that brings people to faith, and qualitative change that leads to holiness and mission. We also need personal growth – in holiness and obedience to Jesus. It’s the feeling broadly associated with each that is most different. We think spiritual formation is nice, emphasizing grace and faithfulness, while leadership is tough, emphasizing effectiveness and results. If our spiritual formation is merely nice, it’s not spiritual formation in the way of Jesus. If our leadership is merely tough, it’s not Kingdom style leadership.

A second, a related question came to Ortberg: “What do you know now that you wish you knew thirty years ago?”  The main point he emphasized in his answer was a freedom to not be primarily a leader. Though his gifts lie elsewhere, he’d been taught that if he’s a pastor, he’s supposed to be a (if not the) leader. But he lacked leadership gifting. Looking back he would have honored and employed his wife’s leadership gifts much sooner.

It seems like a luxury of larger church environments to be able to allow job specialization along lines of gifting. As pastor of a small church, I have to do many things – some I’m good (gifted) at, some I’m not. Otherwise essential functions won’t get done. Perhaps as our smaller churches migrate from the engrained clergy/laity dichotomy to a spiritual gifts understanding of ministry, we’ll be able to do more specialization.

Posted in John Ortberg, Ministry, Renovare, Spirituality | Leave a comment

Some thoughts on a Biblical Worldview

Much has been said in recent years about a “biblical worldview.” Here are some aspects of such a worldview that I include in my teaching and preaching:

  • The centerpiece of God’s activity is Jesus. As God incarnate, Jesus in his life, death, and resurrection gives us the best picture of who God is and what God is up to.
  • God was, is and will be an active agent in the world (conta deism).
  • God is not the only effectual agent in the world (contra determinism).
  • God’s activity is centered on healing/restoring Creation and overcoming sin and all its consequences. (A view of Christian Perfection writ large)
  •  Jesus’ ministry (i.e., the total of his life) was spent in identification with and suffering for undeserving sinners, a truly amazing act on the part of the sovereign, almighty, God of the universe.
  • God’s purpose, at least since the call of Abram, has been to produce a people who are his very own, and the salvation God seeks to work out is most clearly expressed (at least in this age) through that people. (contra individualism)
  • Through the presence of the Holy Spirit in every believer individually and in the church corporately, we are equipped to be the people God wants us to be. However intelligent, skilled and practiced we become, we never get to the point where we can be the church apart from the activity of the Spirit. (contra Max Weber’s theories of the routinization of charisma)
  • God’s call to the church to be a suffering people echoes through the ages from Jesus’ invitation to his disciples to take up their crosses all the way to us today. (contra the modern practice of the comfort centered life)
  • The salvation Jesus offers is for all people (contra five point Calvinism), they will probably never know unless we tell them, and it will cost them if we do not tell them and they do not come to faith in Jesus (contra universalism, laziness and smug self-satisfaction).
  • The church’s story line (as well as the story lines of individual believers) are extensions of the biblical story line. In Christ, God invites us to become willing participants in that story line.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Books I’ve just finished

I read a fair number of books in the course of a year.  Here are a couple I’ve just finished.

Bill Hybels, Just Walk Across the Room: Simple Steps Pointing People to Faith.

You’ll have to look a long time to find someone with greater evangelistic passion than Bill Hybels. Beyond modeling this value (and practice) for his congregation the past few decades, he’s written books and developed video courses to help others join the adventure. This book focuses on simple things ordinary Christians can do to help people connect with Jesus. At the heart of evangelism, Hybels suggests, is a love for people that compels us to build relationships. In some of these relationships we might have the privilege of seeing someone come to faith. In others – probably the majority – we’ll simply have the role of introducing some questions or providing resources. We can be certain there will be no harvest without sowing, watering and cultivating.

Timothy Keller, The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism

Keller is pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City. Far from the religious safety of the bible belt, Keller has planted this church in the largest city in America and seen it grow to several thousand (while assisting in the planting of numerous other churches in the region). His primary audience is composed of young, educated people, many with little or no Christian background. This book addresses many of the questions he’s heard people asking over the years. Having read the book, I can attest that I hear the same questions here in Pittsburg. Some of the challenges he addresses include, “There Can’t Be Just One True Religion,” “How Could a Good God Allow Suffering?” and “How Can a Loving God Send People to Hell?” Keller handles these and other issues with a well-reasoned, biblical and gracious approach. Though he is a Presbyterian of a strong Calvinist bent, he succeeds in his aim of writing in the context of what C.S. Lewis called “Mere Christianity,” the faith shared by mainstream Christians throughout the ages and around the world.

Posted in Books | 2 Comments

Those were the days

And now for something completely different…

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

What does it take to Grow a Great Church?

Many things have been suggested over the years. Here’s my list – these are the things I pray for:

The Manifest Presence of God. The bible tells us God is omnipresent (everywhere). We believe God is with us every time we gather. So what is this “manifest presence of God?” By that I mean that we are aware of God’s presence – that God is changing lives in such a way that there is no other explanation but God. We can do the best preaching, music, programs, architecture, and friendliness in the world. But without God it won’t amount to anything in the long run.

A Willingness to Do Hard Things. Going with the crowd is easy. Living a life indistinguishable from the world is easy. Rationalizing our own righteousness and refusing to forgive those who have hurt us? Perfectly normal. But we’re not called to be normal, we’re called to follow Jesus. Because Jesus gives the Holy Spirit to those who believe we are equipped to do awesome and amazing things. But most of those things aren’t easy. Many won’t be popular.

Openness to Failure. I learned a long time ago to ask a key question of each person seeking employment: ‘Tell me about some of your failures in ministry.” If they’ve never tried anything that didn’t work they don’t get the job. People matter so much to God that it is worth our while to be willing to fail if it means some might come to faith. I pray for a church full of people who are not only willing to fail, but willing to extend grace to others when they fail, so they’ll have the courage to get up and try again.

Jesus-Like Love to Rule. Jesus said, “By this will all people know that you are my disciples, by your love for one another.” He clarified this by telling us our love is to be modeled on his love. I pray for a church where people genuinely love each other, a church where when we have problems – and we will! – we have a deep enough commitment to Jesus and to each other that we are willing to work things out.

A Greater Concern to Serve than to be Served. Jesus said, “The Son of Man has not come to be served, but to serve, and to lay down his life as a ransom for many.” I pray for a church that is passionate to reach out to and draw in those who are on the outside. I want a church that attracts sinners—to be a place where they see a hope for deliverance.

Posted in church growth, Local church, Spirituality | 1 Comment

Relevant or Dissonant

I’m better at asking questions than I am answering them. Today’s poll at Christianity Today asks us to decide whether the church is doing its job when it’s (a) culturally relevant or (b) culturally dissonant. My answer is, “Yes.”

We are called to be culturally relevant enough that people in the world can get some idea what we’re saying. We’re called to be culturally dissonant enough that people in the world can get the idea that we’re not just an echo chamber for what everyone else is saying.

Unlike Islam, Christianity is committed to translation. We believe the bible can be translated into every language, and that the reality of the gospel can be incarnated in every culture.

I like the way Michael Slaughter put it years ago (I paraphrase): “We want to speak clearly enough so people can understand enough so they can know when to be offended.” we’re not called to go sit in our little spiritual fortresses and do our own little spiritual things. We’re not called to go out there and dance to the world’s tune. We’re called to represent Jesus in a world of lost, broken and hurting people. Some will rejoice in what we do and find life. Some will be scandalized and seek to restrain us. Some will find us boring and ignore us. Some will be curious and want to know more.

So which is it: relevant or dissonant? Yes – though with both qualities defined in terms of the gospel.

Posted in Evangelism, Local church | Leave a comment

“Let them eat cake”

The last couple of issues of the United Methodist Reporter have featured articles on GracePoint UMC, a recent church plant in Wichita, Kansas, that grew quickly, but let the denomination this spring. It’s depressing to invest so much money, energy and excitement only to lose the fruit. But it shouldn’t be surprising to people familiar with the way the UMC tends to operate. With few exceptions, we don’t know what to do with high energy innovate leaders. High energy leaders who excel at working within the system, yes, we have plenty of places for them. But people who push hard and are non-conformists? Our system pretty much pushes them elsewhere.

The Reporter spoke with Dan Dick, a UM leader (soon to be on staff at the Wisconsin Annual Conference):

He feels the denomination got off track in the 1990s “when we veered off and started pursuing the church-growth movement” so popular among nondenominational churches. He likens that model to a new business start: Select a location in a growth area, get a dynamic CEO-type leader and find “two or three very deep pockets to draw from, to be able to launch a really nice facility, good parking, good equipment and technology.”

While that formula may work in a congregational setting, he said, it’s not especially beneficial to a connectional system like the United Methodist Church, which seeks to create communities of faith that are accountable within a denominational structure.

Focusing on numerical growth and expansion isn’t really central to the Methodist identity, Dr. Dick argues. And while United Methodist churches want to reach as many people as possible, the Wesleyan focus is instead on building communities that equip people to live as Christian disciples.

“That’s a very different thing,” Dr. Dick said. “It’s one of the reasons why we are traditionally and still are fundamentally a small-membership denomination.”

Most successful United Methodist church starts, he said, tend to have three things in common: They are a satellite of an existing congregation, they have a committed core group of leaders and they are designed to meet a specific need, such as a different racial or ethnic demographic.

GracePoint was a fairly good model, but its expansion was “poorly executed,” Dr. Dick said. Though the church plant sought to launch satellite campuses to reach different audiences, he said “they operated congregationally in a vacuum” and weren’t as concerned about where other United Methodist congregations were present. “They were going into a head-to-head competition rather than seeking ways to be collaborative and connectional.”

I read this and hear that (1) we need to keep our churches mono-cultural and (2) work hard to make sure everyone is happy. If Dr. Dick’s theory is correct that would explain why our denominational membership and evangelistic efforts boomed through the 1970s and 1980s, only to crater in the 1990s when we started to pay attention to the Church Growth Movement. But if that’s the case, why have we had so many books and articles before the 1990s decrying our lack of evangelism and our failure to reach people and grow churches?

I am in a position of no authority in the denomination. I pastor a small church in a small town. I am not charismatic in any sense of the word. My gifts are more in teaching and academia than in growing organizations. But I do know a few things.

1. We need to repent of our compulsion to keep people happy. In our local churches we work so hard to keep the long time members happy that we’re unwilling to make changes that might reach new people – even if those “new people”are our own children and grand children.

2. We need to be more concerned about people becoming followers of Jesus than we are concerned about them becoming OUR followers of Jesus.

3. We need to not only say we want young people in our churches, but we need to stop making them act like retired folks before we allow them to have a say in what we do.

Posted in church growth, United Methodism | 4 Comments