I've been getting so many prods about issues surrounding the church's integrity, it's faithfulness to the Mission of God, that I've been chewing on a new idea. Here is part of my initial thinking.

The discussion I am about to initiate here is more than just a mite complex.

On the one hand, say a person has grown up in the churchy neighborhood of the Christendom variety, where all the rites, words, furnishings and traditions of the institutional church are so familiar that one tends to uncritically accept them and conform oneself to them without question (mindlessly?), … or 'chuck' them as irrelevant to his or her life. This familiar ‘church’ expresses the religious dimension of the 'civitas' and has become part of its social fabric. There is little suspicion among its members that it may have nothing much to do with what it was that God has done in the event of his Christ.

But consider, on the other hand, some happy pagan, some postmodern younger adult with a subliminal spiritual hunger, but a whole demeanor that is somewhat cynical and ruthlessly inquisitive, who approaches the threshold of this same neighborhood of Christendom (where the church has made peace with the empire, and its dominant social order), and stands there de novo, ... looks at is pieces, pokes around and asks questions, takes nothing at face value, and finds that there is both a distressing unwillingness to critique its life and activity by those who are part of it, ... and at the same time he sees also many pointers to the fact that there is some remarkable treasure buried back there somewhere responsible for its beginnings, long-since consigned to the status of a relic. All of this intrigues this inquisitive person. What does he or she do? How does she question the participants? How would he go about discerning if there is integrity and something worth pursuing? How would such a cynical inquirer discern authenticity in all the stuff that seems to consume these churchy institutions?

Or, … consider that there may be others such as I, who (in their eighth decade living in this churchy neighborhood) know the profound events which birthed Christ's church two millennia ago, and am frustrated at how so much of the life and power and enchantment given it by Jesus Christ has been sucked out of it by its conformity to the dominant social order, so that it has become, perhaps a commendable religious institution with many good works and cultural accomplishments—but having nothing to do with the great eschatological salvation of God accomplished in Jesus Christ and intended to demonstrate God’s New Creation to every people group in the whole earth. What if one knows too many family secrets? (Or worse, used to give religious justification to the questionable policies of the nation in which it dwells, alas!) What if one has asked the ultimate questions of its participants ... and received non-answers?

This is not an easy or simple quest. It is far from black and white. The church institutions of Christendom have dominated the scene from at least a millennium and a half. Acts of heroism, treasures of music and culture, faithful humane services, comfort for the suffering, and more blessings than one can catalog are its legacy. But when it becomes a merely human religious institution which can only mouth the words of its supernatural character, yet not expect the dynamic Presence of the Spirit of God, …
Like I say, … it’s complex.

I'd love to hear responses from any who happen to read this. Peace!

I was looking at some notes (on this snowy Sunday afternoon in Atlanta)and thinking about a comment that my missionary friend Harold Kurtz continually makes, namely, that "the gospel is out of control." What he means by that is that there continue to be outbreaking of gospel witness in the most unexpected and humanly impossible places. His point is that it is not really within human control, since the Lord of the Harvest wants every people group to hear and believe.

I have a note here in front of me in which I wrote to myself the similar belief that "the church is out of control." I was chatting with a veteran (now retired) missionary giant the other day, and stating my belief that there were no such thing as clergy in the New Testament, and that one of my theological heroes (Jacques Ellul) says that clergy are part of the "subversion of Christianity." My missionary friend stated: "But you've got to have clergy, or you have no control over what happens."

"Control" ... authority, hierarchy, ... interesting words. My own Presbyterian Church has always made something of a point of pride, that of doing things "decently and in order" and so making a fetish of seeking to control every expression of church life. What is humorous is that this very definition comes in Paul's exhortation to a somewhat rowdy and charismatic church in Corinth to let folk who are expressing gifts of prophecy, tongues, etc. do it so all can profit by it. In our Presbyterian quest for control and order we keep adding to our BOOK OF ORDER until it is so large it is unwieldy as we add new amendments to shore up some place where something is challenging the ecclesiastical control.

This human proclivity to lord it over and exercise control over someone else seems to go all the way back to New Testament times, but is rebuked by Jesus and the apostles who call for humility, servanthood, sensitive pastoring, gentle teaching, mutual love, and the like.

The church as "Christendom institution" may be falling on difficult times in this post-Christian and postmodern era, ... but the church and New Creation community (incarnation of the gospel) keeps breaking out in new forms, in household groups, in new expressions by the power of the Spirit, and in places and among peoples previously untouched. It is, after all, not ultimately a human enterprise. It is the Ascended Lord Jesus who is building his church. The great traditions: Roman Catholocism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Anabaptism, Reformed, Lutheran, Pentecostal, Independent, etc. (Western world and majority world) all have been viable expressions in different times and places. But they are not essential to the "one, holy, catholic and apostolic church."

To my mind, one of the most notable illustrations of this was the expelling of so much of the missionary force in China in 1948 (Protestant and Catholic), then the forcing of a large part of the witnessing church underground in the "cultural revolution." What happened? The church exploded in size and vitality under the most extenuating of circumstances. When Christian witnesses were put in concentration camps, they had no reason to be clandestine about their preaching so did it boldly and Christian communities sprang up in concentration camps. Out of control.

I really believe that the era of denominations and of the vast institutions of Christendom is in its twilight. What I am anticipating is a "church out of control" spring up with vitality in new expressions, fresh authenticity, reaping the riches of two millennia of Christian history, but much less pretentious, much simpler, much more focused on the mission of God in humility, servanthood, power, mutual love and ministry, ... all of those expressions of God's New Creation community that the New Testament point us to.

Will there be aberrations, conflicts, problems? Sure? There always have been. We hold this treasure in earthen vessels. But that doesn't keep the church from its calling. Control is not the answer, nor is clergy. "I will build my church." It is Christ's working by Word and Spirit creating the human community as God intends it to be.

Something like that ... but out of control. Peace!
_____

Let me try a (heretical?) thought on you.

There is a plethora of wonderful, provocative works on the necessity of a radical transformation in the thinking and formation of the church as we move into the future. As we have been reminded: this a 'liminal' period for which there are no roadmaps. I have recently been reading SIGNS OF EMERGENCE by Kester Brewin. The beauty of these 'Brits" is that there ecclesial experience (and the drastic decline in the whole Christendom / institutional church phenomenon) ... is a whole generation or two ahead of us, so that the crisis in looking with radical eyes at the mission of the church has been far more of a forced necessity than for them than for the US, where we still have the illusion of the possibility of "more of the same."

And I have no qualms about being positive -- I really believe that it is Jesus Christ who builds his church, and has given us instruction and supernatural provision to be about the work with him. I believe Jesus Christ has brought us to this moment. No question.

That the church is "assembling together" is a reality also -- but maybe not where we tend to look. In all kinds of gatherings, house churches, classes, around dinner tables, coffee shops, as well as in larger assemblies. So God's saints can, and do, assemble together to express their love and accountability to one another-- and to let the Word of Christ dwell among them richly (Colossians 3:16). In such assemblings the gifts of the Spirit are being demonstrated in wonderful but usually non-dramatic ways through faithful brothers and sisters.

The "gospel of the Kingdom" is, in fact, being radiated to all nations, all ethnic groups, and more often than we know in ways that were not actually planned by any mission agency. Obedient followers of Jesus have taken it upon themselves, often with the encouragement of a small group of praying friends, to make a move to get to some unreached person, neighborhood, tribe, region. Like leaven!

My (heretical) thought has to do with 'clergy.' So much of the writing and thinking has as its default mode, something of a 'Christendom' concept of something called 'clergy.' These are so traditionally accepted that most cannot even begin to thing of the church and its mission without also positing clergy. What is even more ironic is that in the West we have fallen prey to the crazy assumption that such clergy are equipped by the acquisition of an academic degree. I find the very designation of "master (or doctor) of divinity" to be too presumptuous to be taken seriously.

Where did 'clergy' come from? It is not a term the New Testament employs. Jacques Ellul thinks it is part of the "subversion of the church." These professionals, who are ordained, take on a status that relegates the rest of God's people of that (questionable and often passive-dependent) role of "laity," who are to be politely subservient to these who are (gasp) God's ordained leaders, whether or not they have proven any capacity to be fruitful in making disciples or forming Kingdom communities that incarnate the Kingdom of God / the New Creation.

So I am of a conviction that the refounding of the Church in this 21st century culture, or the emerging of the church, is going to come FROM THE UNDERSIDE -- it is going to take place (and is taking place) not through some top-down clergy leadership, but by God's faithful people coming to maturity and expressing the nature and character of God through ministering God's gifts in and among and to one another through the practical provisions of the faithful God, which we often speak of as "charismata" or the gifts and ministries of the Holy Spirit.

The gifts of the Spirit are not some activity planned, or some responsibility assigned to a person by some ecclesial body (or committee), but are the very life of God, the nature of God, the love of God, the provision of God for God's "dwelling place by the Spirit" which is God's family: the church.

Ephesians 4 lists four (or five?) missional gifts, which have been slighted disastrously by the Christendom church: apostle, prophet, evangelist, and pastor-teacher (probably a composite gift -- though this is controversial). I Corinthians and Romans list a number of (what I call) "household gifts" or provisions or necessary ministries if the church is to demonstrate the love of God, the hospitality of God, the Word of God, the wisdom of God, the perspective and cultural understanding of God, and the enthusiastic radiation of the good news to those still outside.

Clergy seems to be a category that has (to use Ellul's term) "subverted" God's design to furnish his household by providing such beautiful gifts and ministries that actually bring the community of the New Creation to come into being in all of its fullness.

What do you think ...? To be continued ...

Bob Henderson (see e-mail address on the masthead of this blog.)

I periodically love poetry primarily because I am envious of those who can put such images into words with such beauty and depth. I was thinking the other day about Oliver Goldsmith’s 18th century poem “The Deserted Village.” You may remember that he is looking with idyllic eyes and the village that had become the victim of the industrial revolution: “Sweet Auburn, loveliest village of the plain.” He remembers the very positive dimensions of human relations, integrity of the character, caring community—then laments that it is all a thing of the past. The church was part of Goldsmith’s memory and the gentle preacher who ministered gospel and human kindness with such grace.

But Auburn is now deserted, and it’s memory leaves an aching void in Goldsmith’s heart. There was so much that was meaningful in that restricted, provincial life. The tragedy is that we in the 21st century have a tendency to preserve the church-life patterns of that era in a culture that is as different as the industrial revolution was from the agrarian life of this rustic British village. We miss so many of the meaningful traditions, yet have forgotten the mission.

Sometimes I feel like an exile in the church. It all looks and sounds so familiar to one who has inhabited its institutional precincts from birth. Yet, I can’t connect what I see and hear and experience to much that determines this postmodern information age. I even have a difficult time trying to be positive about how any of this relates to the profound mission of God to "make all things new" in Christ. It smacks of spiritual entertainment, or (as one described it) “therapeutic deism.” So much of our leadership is even schizophrenic in that it sees “missional church” creativity positively, but whose own default mode is incorrigibly “Christendom” with all of the institutional and ecclesial paraphernalia. Confusing.

But I suppose it is bound to happen. Alan Roxburgh has popularized the word “liminal” as that transition period between cultures in which there is no pattern and no knowns and no roadmaps, … so that we have to “feel our way along” into the unknown future.

Or, as per the title of this Blog, I think of Marist priest Gerald Arbuckle, whose study on why the Maryknoll Order’s ranks were diminishing rather ominously a few decades ago. His conclusion was that when an order was initiated it was totally absorbed in a unified sense of vision and mission, which provided a dynamic. But, … as that “founding myth” (vision, convictions, theology, mission) was “diluted, displaced, or forgotten,” then the “order reverted to chaos.”

Somewhere in those images lies the dilemma that we face in the North American church, clinging to an archaic and essentially non-Biblical ecclesiology that was the dominant image for centuries, but simply doesn’t fit such a radically new culture. Yet there are all of those dynamic and fruit and creative episodes of missional community that keep emerging in places no one would expect.

Little publicity accompanied one of the hugely fruitful awakenings in recent decades in such places as Harvard, Cal Berkeley, and such institutions. The gospel came through ad hoc communities of students and faculty who had a vision, an image, if you will, of a bold engagement of the gospel of the kingdom of God (with all of its cultural dimensions) with the somewhat hostile and secularized culture of these universities. Institutional churches were only marginal in this. Universites tended to be suspicious and resistant.

Yet those participants, those ad hoc communities had not “diluted, displaced, or forgotten” what the New Testament gospel and mission were all about, and how culturally forming and transforming it actually is. Nor did they lament the former glories of institutional Christendom churches whose impressive sanctuaries and architecture adorn the very campuses on which these forums of Christian presentation were taking place (not to mention the cities and villages of the land). These church institutions and the communities of "members"that inhabit them have long-since become forgetful of the Mission of God and their role as its redemptive and transformation dynamic as Spirit-filled communities.

Arbuckle concludes that we need to "refound the church." Missional church leaders are calling for cultural engagement and creativity in the form of the missional community. The Veritas Forum is calling for bold prayers and intentional engagement as creative and thoughtful communities with the hopelessness and darkness of the culture surrounding us.

That’s worth pursuing. E-mail me your response. To be continued …

Bob Henderson

Very occasionally I get some word on my e-mail that some dear person is actually reading these musings of mine. I am now getting my act together after several months of some physical stuff that has rather nailed my foot to the floor -- and intend to be begin posting some thoughts and, maybe, suggestions week by week.

By the way, if you do read Bob's Blogs, would you do me a favor and drop an email to my address listed somewhere on this site and tell me so? I would be so grateful to you. I am motivated when I know I'm not just talking to myself.

I actually am working on a written piece (whatever form it will finally be, I don't know) spring-boarding off of the NT text that says that we should "not forsake the assembling of yourselves together." I want to know "why not?" What is the aroma, form, and flavor of being together that makes this critical to our welfare -- and if that form, flavor, and aroma doesn't exist, is there any reason why we should inflict meaningless assembling on ourselves?

To be continued ...

Drop me a note.

It would not be difficult for some of us in the Christian community to become a bit cynical about it all. How often have I endured endless church gatherings, and later reflecting on what I had experienced and wondering what it had to do with anything, much more: What did it have to do with the kingdom of God?

This morning I was listening to a Mars Hill tape of an scholar who had co-authored a book on J. R. R. Tolkien's vision of our stewardship of the environment in his trilogy and his Silmarillion. One of the tragedies in the trilogy was that the evil figures "spoiled the shire" environmentally. That in turn triggered in me some reflections on my Christian community's sense of what our stewardship of God's creation would be. Here we are with all kinds of international conferences on global warming, or greenhouse gasses, of the depletion of resources, of the polluting of so much of what has been given to us. Then again, what does my Christian community assume is its role in equipping me / us to understand such stewardship?

But this led to that and I began to wonder about our understanding of our "seeking the welfare of the city into which I have sent you" (Jeremiah 29:07)? What about all of those realities that consume the media these days: war in Iraq, the economy, reconciliation of relationship amidst ancient rivalries, ... or ethics in business, in medicine, in the workplace, public policity? How are the people of God to be participant in the answering of the "Thy kingdom come, thy will be done" prayer given to us?

Is it some kind of escapism that causes us to only look upon disciplemaking in terms of person piety? Does our call to holiness include the grim realities of the very real and complex of our daily lives? That "this is my Father's world ..." as we sing (or used to)? What would happen if we saw as the role of the Christian community and its teachers to enable us to look through the lenses of scripture and see the stuff that really counts?

The word 'evangel' carries with it the concept of thrilling and compelling announcement of something so indescribably good and transforming that one has to communicate it in every way. Jesus came preaching the 'evangel' of the Kingdom of God which included casting out demons, healing the sick, feeding the hungry, setting the prisoner free, announcing the great liberation of the Jubilee. To his disciples he taught them that feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the prisoners, caring for the sick -- stuff that really could be 'evangel' to those victims of such deprivations. Of course it is a gospel that heralds the great of reconciliation through the cross of Christ, and the forgiveness of sin and the adoption into the family of God without guilt or shame. But it also promises the divine nature being given to us (II Peter 1:4).

It's one thing to get together and talk about holiness and righteousness in the abstract -- but how are we equipped, and how do we work within the Christian community to make a people instruments of righteousness and demonstrations of God's good purpose for this city into which he has sent us? Now there's a question for your Christian nurture committee. God's people should not be brain-dead ideologues of some liberal or conservative agenda, and especially of some pietistic comfort-zone christianity. Salt and light that the outsiders can see and with whom they can engage in conversation should be the standard pattern of the community of the Kingdom of God, replete with resident Gandalfs who remind us of our stewardship.

Want to feed back to me on that subject?

Peace!
______

When I wrote ENCHANTED COMMUNITY I included as one of the signs of the authenticity of the 'enchanted" New Creation community: "Alternative and Subversive New Creation Thinking and Behaving As a Sight of Authenticity" (page 158).

I'll stand by that.

When the thinking and behavior of the ostensible community of the Kingdom of God simply mirrors that of the 'culture of the empire'--then it ceases to be salt and light. It ceases to fulfill its function as a demonstation of the human community as indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

Face it: the Reign of God in the community called the Church ... is counter-cultural through and through. Jesus' commission in Matthew included "... teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." That is how we are salt and light before the watching world. So what does that mean? You don't have to be a rocket scientist or a sophisticated theologian to know that at the very least it includes thinking and living out of the Sermon on the Mount (not to overlook the several other sermons included in Matthew's gospel along with the ethical teaching of the whole New Testament). We call that 'gospel obedience.'

Tragically, the Sermon on the Mount has been 'spiritualized' and 'devotionalized' until it is only a toothless and otherworldly ideal which we subjectively hold within ourselves, but are not expected to live out in the public square. Talk about emasculating the message! But when the Church was established as the official religion of the Empire along in the fourth century (the reign of Emperor Constantine), then it was no longer politically correct to prophetically challenge the empire--after all the Church had become the chaplain to the Empire, and it wouldn't be polite to speak prophetically against the hand that was feeding you, i.e., "Babylon" which was our host.

Parenthetically, there were always those who did take the priority of the Kingdom of God / New Creation seriously, and did, in fact, seek to live out the ethical mandates of the Sermon on the Mount. Often they met an unhappy end, alas! There were voices within the Roman Church, and later the dissident voices of the radical reformation--but, by and large, very subtly the national idols were moved into the community of faith and became interpretive of it.

It was so also in eighth and seventh centuries BC Judaism, when the Baals and Ashtoreth of Canaanite culture were moved into the places of worship. It wasn't that YHWH, the God of Israel, was denied, ... it was just that the gods of the culture also became objects of worship. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the Lord and Creator of the universe had to share billing with the tribal gods of the locality.

Not much has changed.

I'm old enough to remember the 1960's as a young pastor when the whole of our society was in full confrontation with the idols exposed by the civil rights movement, ... that along with the idolatry of blind nationalism that was engaged in the Vietnam War. And what was the response of a huge percentage of the Christian community? To quote a spiritual: "Nobody said a mumblin' word." Those who did speak the Word of God prophetically were ususally labelled as radicals, socialists, traitors or some other less-than-flattering label -- and so dismissed. O, to be sure, sometimes in the secure chambers of ecclesiastical bodies someone would get passed an overture expressing displeasure with racism or American foreign policy. But it was a no-no subject in most pulpits.

The primary loyalty of the followers of Jesus is always for the Kingdom of our God and of his Christ. It is always threatening when this primary loyalty challenges the idols of nation and culture (try removing the American flag from the sanctuary!). As a preacher and teacher of the Word of God I can testify that there is an incredible, frightening and demonic voice that will on the spot warn you, dare you, threaten you when any such strong Kingdom of God teaching challenges the idols of the culture whether they be national, economic, social, traditional ... The voice will warn you that you are going to create controversy and upset the congregation. It will intimidate you into silence, or into by-passing the clear teachings of scripture in order to maintain the (false) peace of the community.

I innocently challenged the Desert Storm War those several years ago. The national press was boasting that the Americans had almost no casualties therefore the war was a smashing success. But this nation in which I reside and to which I pay taxes had killed tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians and nobody seemed to notice. At one time that would have made us war criminals, but our national conscience had been so numbed that it went un-noticed. Yet one only has to read the Beatitudes to know that there is something profoundly disturbing about such thinking and behavior. Again, those Biblical teachers who raised their voices to expose such were dismissed as un-patriotic or treasonous. For the most part "nobody said a mumblin' word."

Such silence is so normal, such blind national idolatry is so unchallenged by the Kingdom community as to seem the norm. So here we are again with horrendous violations of God's design for the human community and for human governments perpetrated by our leaders, ... a tragic and destructive policy in the Middle East, genocide in Darfur, vast amounts of misspent monies in our national budget, ... and a mostly silent pulpit in most churches. Little demonstration of counter-cultural nature of the community of God's New Creation. Saltless salt and hidden light. How tragic.

Lord have mercy!
Christ have mercy!
Lord have mercy!

To be continued ...

I have a particular affinity for the plight of the Israelites in their years of captivity in that strange empire of Babylon. I often have those feelings of being in captivity to some ecclesiastical Babylon in the scene in which I operate. The Israelites had been ruthlessly uprooted and transported to an alien culture. And even though they had brought this on themselves by their carelessness and disobedience to their calling to be formed by the Torah, ... still you can imaging that when the dust settled, and the months grew into years, that they must have had all kinds of sobering moments wondering how they were to cope with their new existence. Escape was out of the question. Their sacred traditions and memories of their better moments in temple worship were now but some vague reminiscence of another time and place. Here they were: "You are here! What now?"

In our "North Park" churches (The mythical church in my book ENCHANTED COMMUNITY) with all of their familiar ecclesiastical accoutrements, I sometimes wonder what any of it has to do with what I am exposed to in the New Testament documents, what with it radical and subversive teachings of the gospel of the Kingdom of God. Reading those inspired documents can make me identify with being an alien and an exile, not in Babylon the empire, but in the "ecclesiastical Babylon" in which I am captive. Does that make sense? Membership without discipleship. Worship services that are but spiritual performances but don't bring us into the awesome presence of the Holy God. Activites and attractions, but little compelling compassion for those still outside. Organization but not true "one another" accountability and responsibility with real others who have names and faces and stories. ... You can go on and on. That church portrayed in those New Testament documents was not rooted, had no agenda of institutional permenance, dealt with its problems and crises on their missional journey with prayer and fasting, kept breaking out of cultural boundaries, was versatile, flexible, vulnerable. It was a community of Kingdom of God exiles. It was counter-cultural. It suffered for its obedience. It embraced the "offense of the gospel" with joy.

Not so with North Park. We're rooted. We've got prestige and organization. We're a real spiritual comfort-zone. We're an established part of this neo-pagan North American culture. So if, like the brothers and sisters in the 7th century B.C. (or whenever), we're trying to cope with our captivity faithfully, and we can't escape, what do we do?

Jeremiah had a word to the exiles (29:5-7):

"Build houses and live in them, plant gardens and eat what they produce. Take wives and have sons and daughters, take wives for your sons, and give your daughters in marriage, that they may bear sons and daughters; multiply there, and do not decrease. But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the Lord on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare."

I am presumptuous enough to have paraphrased this for myself in my ecclesiastical captivity (and pass it on to you):

"Create communities of believers in your place of exile, your North Park Church, where you are. Become a disciple of our Lord Jesus and become fruitful by abiding in him and having his word abide in you. Establish patterns and disciplines of nurture and growth for yourself and for others. 'Teach and admonish one another with the Word of Christ, ... in psalms and hymns ...' Make disciples. Become contagious with good works. Demonstrate the divine nature in you. Demonstrate the New Creation of God in Christ. Incarnate the mission of God in building bridges to those still outside. In so doing you will find your own welfare."

In other words:

1. Put down roots, make yourself at home, provide self-sustaining, self-nurturing resources for yourself. Be creative. Don't be dependent on the 'clergy' or 'church professionals.'

2. Engage in / create relationships that are wholesome, redemptive and missional so that they may multiply.

3. Be positively committed to the welfare of the ecclesiastical Babylon into which God sends us to be his demonstrations of New Creation.

4. Pray (seriously) for it in the Spirit.

5. That's where you will prosper.

What do you think? Have you got other ideas to share in your exile? To be continued ...

A few years ago there was a very "successful" pastor and preacher of a very large and prosperous mainline denominational church in our community. He professed to be thoroughly "evangelical", and in fact,in so far as it went he was quite orthodox in his positions. I could be thankful for the use he made of his influence in many different spheres. He was entrepreneurial 'down to his tonails.' He could make things happen.

All that said, whenever I was with him or whenever I heard him speak and preach, something nagged at me--something was missing and I felt somehow that his 'evangelical' message was somehow short-changed or dehydrated that I couldn't put my finger on. Did you ever have that feeling? Then it dawned on me: It wasn't what he was preaching that troubled my spirit--it was what he wasn't preaching, what he was leaving out. His was a congregation of solid and comfortable pretty much upper middle-class and probably even wealthy citizens. The Sermon on the Mount is pretty difficult to digest if you are wedded to "the American way of life." What didn't get preached were any of the difficult and demanding teachings of Jesus, anything remotely counter-cultural, anything that would upset the comfort-zone success of their fine church. The cultural idols were never exposed, and the cultural myths were never unmasked. What was preached was grace and love and forgiveness. Nothing wrong with that, but ...

There are, you realize, very real idols and myths. Blind nationalism ("Caesar is lord," "God bless America," ... ). In my Reformed tradition (when we remember it), worship services are always to begin with adoration, hymns of adoration (like the "Old Hundredth"), prayers of adoration whose focus is on God himself/Godself. It is that time when the people of the Kingdom of God who are to seek first the kingdom of God acknowledge their alternative loyalties, that we are primarily citizens of the Dominion of God. Case in point of this not happening: at a denominational conference on the 4th of July the Sunday morning worship (?) opened with "America the beautiful." Everybody loves to sing that and they did. But did you ever notice that "America the Beautiful" is a hymn to the nation, and only asks God to be utilitarian and shed his grace on the nation. National idolatry? It was all so acceptable and so familiar that nobody peeped.

But blind nationalism is only one such idol. There are economic idols, cultural fashions, environmental myths, and countless other filters that relegate the gospel of the kingdom to a subordinate role in the church and conform us to the patterns of this age. The result? Saltless salt.

But having stood countless Sundays in the pulpit I can testify that if and when the text calls for the whole radical and counter-cultural lifestyle of the kingdom of God to be unfolded to the waiting congregation, ... there comes the demonic voice in one's ear: "Better tone that down, you'll upset a lot of people and lose some members, or cause a real donnybrook."

I've been reading MERE DISCIPLESHIP by Lee C. Camp (which I heartily commend). Camp stands in the anabaptist tradition I assume, but this commendable book unfolds the radical and subversive nature of the gospel of the kingdom, and calls us to respond. It is a very convincing immersion into Biblical teachings that one seldom hears in all too much of the church formed by 'Christendom.' Shame!

Seems as though somewhere in the era of Emperor Constantine's decree making Christianity the official religion of the empire, there came an accomodation with the empire that filters the gospel through whatever is for the benefit of the dominant government. "You (the church) pray for the empire and the empire will take care of you." (That's why the civil magistrate still doesn't tax your church property! Ever notice that?) That was one of Adolph Hitler's gimmicks, namely, to convince members of the German church that to be a good Christian you had to be a "German Christian," i.e., support the policies of the Nazi government. Question: Is it so much different with us? Are we free, like the dissidents, Bonhoeffer and the Witnessing Church of that period -- to challenge the policies, ethics, philosophies, myths that produced so grotesque a period in human history?

Thankfully there always have been and there are those in the family of God who expose these idols and challenge the myths of interpretation that seek to conform us to this age: prophets, martyrs, faithful teachers. But they pay a price: Oscar Romero, Clarence Jordan, Desmond Tutu, ... maybe even Bono!

Whose responsibility is it in the economy of the Christian community? Have we missed something? It's all too rare. Wall Street, Iraq, greenhouse effect, indifference to the homeless and imprisoned and dying, ... or even to the spiritually dead and greedy and empty pagans that inhabit our subdivision -- don't mention these. This gets too close to home. Result: saltless salt and hidden light. What do you think? Whose responsibility to name the idols and expose the myths?

To be continued ...

I have often wondered how serious we are about really engaging in the conversations with neighbors and daily associates that might introduce them to the love of God in Christ. So what would happen if our congregations forsook their security of being together with other like-minded believers -- say, once a month or so, and told the folk to stay home and invite their neighbors in for coffee / brunch and get to know them? Wouldn't that be interesting?

It's called "immersion." It actually involves one in the reality of listening, tuning-into, taking seriously those folk we rub elbows with on a regular basis. This is not a "recruit for membership" trick, but an actual bridge-building conversation with those still outside.

I've seen some similar immersion enterprises along the way. Scared some folk "spitless," ... but they were never the same again. It's safe to "go to church" but to really "be the church" in the context of those who live around you is a bit more challenging. Just a thought! Peace.

Sometimes when reading of Daniel in Babylon, away from his roots in Jerusalem, dwelling in the emperor's court, and yet faithfully doing excellent service on behalf of the empire -- I think of my own sojourn in this 'ecclesial Babylon' and in this nation (USA) currently so bent on policies that grieve my Kingdom conscience. How to be faithful? So I have been blessed by EXILES by Michael Frost, by THE MYTH OF A CHRISTIAN NATION by Gregory Boyd, and by CADENCES OF HOME by Walter Brueggemann, all of whom are very helpful in giving me perspective on my calling to be one of God's exiles dwelling in alien territory, yet called to do it with joy, with purpose, will missional integrity and purpose -- all the while unveiling the myths and the idols of the culture in which I live. I would appreciate any feedback you might have on this theme. After all, the divine intent of God is God's mission to bless the nations through the seed of Abraham, even Jesus Christ. That doesn't mean that we're ever 'at home' in the process. Any input? Thanks

On this Friday before the church's celebration of the Incarnation of God (when "The Word became flesh and blood, and moved into the neighborhood." - THE MESSAGE)... I am pondering several themes that seem to be to be interrelated in a strange way: 1)Worship services, 2)the Massacre of the Innocents, 3)Darfur, and 4) the church's missionary confrontation with the world. This is provoked by the realization that three days after Christmas in the church's liturgical year comes the usually forgotten observance of The Massacre of the Innocents (did you ever hear a sermon on Herod killing all of those innocent babies?) On top of that is the increasingly depressing news that in Darfur a genocide is taking place that dwarfs what Herod did because of the birth of Jesus: like, 200,000-400,000 killed and 200,000 homeless with their villages burned, the women raped, and on and on ...

Then there is Lesslie Newbigin's poignant comment that the missional church is always in "missionary confrontation" with the world in which it lives. That means that if we are to be obediently engaged in the Mission of God (Missio Dei) that we must be conversant with, and in conversation with, the world in which we live both close to home (in the neighborhood) and in the larger world.

But what troubles me is that there is this church activity which we label as "worship" that is most frequently some form of "spiritual entertainment" to "give us comfort" in our pilgrimage. Alright. But a couple of questions: where does the idea of a 'worship service' come fromanyway? It is never mandated, and nowhere mentioned in our New Testament documents. Where is it stated in scripture that we are to conduct worship services. Is the Triune God to be worshipped and adored? Absolutely. No question. Only, in the New Testament there seem to be two thngs that take place when the community is together (probably in homes): 1) the Word of Christ was taught and dwelt richly among the believers as the taught and admonished one another with it, ... and 2) they prayed. These ministries were mutually carried out in the context of a hostile world (a missionary context) and the church community sought to obey the mandate of Christ to make disciples of every people group in the world.

Are you still with me? What I'm chewing on is my own expeience in a broad range of churches from several traditions in which "worship services" never do much to stand in missionary confrontation with the Babylon, the Empire, in which we live -- much less to challenge it as Kingdom citizens -- as counter-cultural. Rather, (pardon my hyperbole) we leave our designer homes, and wear our designer clothes, and come to designer (architecturally and aesthetically pleasing) church buildings, to (I hate to say it) tip our hats to our 'designer god', alas!

Nothing counter-cultural here. So, when in such traditional churches does the Word of Christ dwell richly and form the congregation? Where is a prophetic word on peacemaking (or any of the Beatitude descriptions of Kingdom behavior)? Where is there a provocation to even be awareness of such horrendous tragedies such as Darfur (or Iraq) with accompanying passionate intercession for God's intrusion into such nighmares? Justice? Stewardship of creation? God's provision for the poor, the hungry, the helpless, the naked, the helpless victims ...?

Bottom line: if worship services become something of the focal-point of our churchs' assemblies, how do they form us (if at all) to be disciples, to be salt and light, to be those who stand faithfully in missionary confrontation with the world?

So as we give thanks for the Incarnation of God this coming Monday, ... remember the Massacre of the Innocents is next Thursday on the church's calendar. Remember that much of the genocide in Darfur is aimed at our Christian brothers and sisters in south Sudan. Lord have mercy! We are called to be God's instruments of righteousness (Romans 6), and that is in the very real world-neighborhood in which we live as the followers of Jesus Christ.

To be continued ...

One of my respondents (I have a few) quite agreed with my assessment of the subversion created by such an inventions as 'clergy,' ... but being one herself was frustrated. Welcome to the club.

In missional church discussions, we speak of this period in which we find ourselves as "liminatlity," i.e., that in-between period when old patterns are fading and new ones haven't emerged yet. We are between Christendom and post-Christendom. We are in that cultural 'whitewater' where we just have to innovate as we go along. Many of us have lived with the frustration of my respondent. A couple of suggestions and encouragements. Most of us got into this pastoral ministry out of a real sense of wanting to be faithful and fruitful in God's mission in the world and through the church. I am one of those. I had not a clue what I was getting into, and even after four years of seminary was still trying to figure out what I had gotten myself into. And being pragmatic I wasn't too impressed with those who were 'prominent' in the clergy scene.

First, don't take the prestigious title "ordained minister of Word and Sacrament", or the designation as "clergy" too seriously. What the church is looking for is not clergy, but authentic disciples who are models of maturity in life and scripture. Conversely, do take the necessary ministry of the Teaching Shepherd (cf. my essay dated 12/7) seriously. There are a whole lot of hungry sheep out there who need to be fed (along with all the nominal folk who haven't figured it all out yet). This is seldom a huge bunch of folk, but I've never found a congregation yet without some quiet folk who want to spend time with a disciple-maker. One prominent pastor-friend requested the Pulpit Nominating Committee who was expediting his calling to a large church to covenant with him to meet with him weekly for mutual accountability and for mutual engagement with life and scripture.

Secondly, just acknowledge that in this liminal period we probably "wear two hats," the traditional and expected role of clergy what with sermons, weddings, funerals, counselling, etc., ... and the other hat of the Biblically defined pastor-teacher / Teaching Shepherd of Ephesians 4 who is motivated and thrilled by being able to equip God's people into maturity. Maybe II Timothy 2:2 is worth checking into.

We live with those two hats and thank God that we have that potential of seeing others into maturity. As a young pastor I was asked by a young medical intern and a new Christian to help him understand what discipleship was all about. He and I met weekly (breakfast in a quiet corner of a cafeteria) for three or four years. He has spent a whole career as an outstanding surgeon, and had done the same with scores of others as I did with him. I have often thought that if I had done nothing else in my pastoral career, that the joy of seeing what happened in this spiritual son made it worth it all. Be at peace about wearing two hats. OK.

To be continued ...

George Barna has reported (REVOLUTION) that 20 million "born-again Christians" have given up on the church as being irrelevant to their Christian lives. How sad. Evidently Walter Brueggemann has said somewhere that the response of many thoughtful followers of Christ is "alienation and rage" at what they are exposed to in many pulpits. Again, how sad. Why is this so? I can identify with both of those reports.But it's still sad. I struggle with this myself.

Maybe, I could make a case for the Christian community's need to be delivered from the "tyranny of the clergy." In healthy church scenes the church's leadership sees itself in the Biblical role of "equipping God's people for their work of ministry ..." But (I put it in quotes) "clergy" is a subversion, and too often become the purveyors of spiritual rhetoric that all too often "commodifies" the radical gospel of the kingdom so that no-one is offended.Too often they see "pastoral care" as keeping everybody happy in the church, visiting the sick, etc. (you know what I'm talking about) It sees the people of God as passive recipients of clergy services. (Mind you, I am one of those who bear the burden of being called "clergy" and "reverend" alas!)

When I finished writing ENCHANTED COMMUNITY, I looked at the seven signs of authenticity which I, at least, saw in scripture for the church as a viable demonstration of the New Creation / Kingdom of God. I asked myself: "But who is responsible to form or equip the believer in these signs of authenticity (you'll have to read the book, I guess, to know what they are)? Or, I was reading Greg Boyd's recent book on THE MYTH OF A CHRISTIAN NATION (recommended)and being thrilled at his explication of the gospel of the kingdom as a truly counter-cultural force. But again, the folk Barna or Brueggemann are speaking about don't have a Greg Boyd as a resident teacher (and he lost a couple of thousand members by what he said in this book!).

The gospel of the Kingdom of God is, if anything, not dull. It is not irrelevant to Christian lives. It is subversive. It is radical. It is counter-cultural. It is transformational.

But back to the question: in Christ's provision, furnishing of his household, of his New Creation community, what provision is made for its participants to be formed into missional folk, into the image of Christ, into demonstrations of New Creation, into the body of Christ?. From their baptism, realistically, what makes this counter-cultual New Creation person happen?

My proposal is that we scrap the whole image of the Christendom church with it's clergy-class, and return to the church as a charismatic/pneumatic community in which every participant is part of the mission and is gifted by the Spirit of Christ to contribute to the authenticity of the community as the demonstration of New Creation. In that furnishing by the Ascended Lord, according to Ephesians 4, there is the disciple-maker, the teaching shepherd, whose responsibility under God is to form and equip all of God's people for the Mission of God. This has nothing to do necessarily with preaching sermons, with being ordained to word and sacrament, or to all the ecclesial aura connected with our Christendom image of "pastor." It does have to do with a more mature disciple spending significant time with real persons, younger disciples, who have names and faces and stories, and (as Paul put it) being able to affirm: "What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, do; and the God of peace shall be with you." (Philippians 4:9)

Maybe if we could reclaim that pattern, the church would not be irrelevant to Christian lives, and maybe "alienation and rage" would be replaced with excited engagement. What do you think? To be continued ...