Something Nice

Just so I'm not misunderstood, here's my definition of "traditional" church:

A church whose mission focus and front door is the Sunday Worship service, with the service's main focus being the sermon, and whose supplemental programs focus almost exclusively on classroom learning.

According to this definition, most "contemporary" churches are the same as traditional ones, just with different instruments.

I've been challenged by several parties to say something nice about them. Here goes: they did a great job teaching a lot of people music. Almost all of the best musicians come from this church background (i.e., me) even if they don't stay there (i.e., me).

But the problems I hope to overcome are:
1) they are audience-focused, not God-focused, you couldn't meet God if you tried.
2) the services depend on a completely passive audience (yes, they do!)
3) since there is no time to connect, people never see the "real people" there, just superficial masks that add to a huge hypocrisy problem
4) only a handful of people "do ministry" on a weekly basis, and only because they are paid!

And I will also say this:
the traditional/contemporary church taught me that these four things are indeed problems, but these churches just don't realize that the format is what causes the problems, not necessarily the incredibly sinful people that don't listen.

We need to ask these questions now:
1) How can I teach in a way that leads people to God?
2) How can I encourage participatory learning?
3) What do I do to provide time for busy people to really connect with each other?
4) How can I let more and more people minister to each other (entertainment doesn't count!)?

The short answer is to make churches less like a night at the symphony and more like an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting. One changes broken lives, the other is an excuse to play dress-up and schmooze with people you don't even like. Which one is your church?

Messianic Postmodernity

This post may go over some people's heads, but I'm OK with that.

I'm really excited to be graduated so that now I can finally read all the books I've been wanting to read but couldn't because of the demands of school. I'm reading more about the "emergent" wing of the emerging church, frequently classified as those who reside in emergentvillage.com.

One of their unifying traits (if any!) is the idea of what has been termed a "trajectory hermeneutic." Simply put, that is the idea that there seems to be a shift between old and new testaments, and the church continues the shift as our context changes. Some might call it evolutionary Christianity, some might call it stupid.

Some are claiming that we are in a new stage in God's redemption story, which included past things like creation, the exodus, the exile, Jesus' resurrection, (perhaps) the protestant reformation, and now postmodernism (or postmodernity?).

Here's the key question: is the Bible sufficient after 2,000 to 3,000 years of saying the same thing? Are the people that propound this view really under the direction of the Holy Spirit?

I'll make this brief: Yes with a but, and no with an if.
Yes, scripture is sufficient, otherwise we'd either get more of it or we wouldn't even need it.
While I believe that many of these people are Christian, (probably?) I think that some of their teachings are going to have serious consequences down the line.

"Present Future"

I just finished reading The Present Future by Reggie McNeal. It was a graduation present and a good read. He said a lot of the same things that I've been writing about, except his was more thought out and a few years before me!

Here's my deal. I want a church (group of people) to be different, not just for the sake of new, but for the sake of discipleship. As I've been saying we really need to reevaluate the marks of a follower of Jesus (traditionally: church attendance, tithing, and helping the church) and use marks from the sermon on the mount, such as loving enemies, generosity, genuineness, and a love for God because of Jesus that spills over into our other relationships.

Basically, I really don't see much good in the institutional church. My goal is to massively decentralize things, and "disorganize" the church, if you will, in order to make it more effective and even more enjoyable in my opinion.


Anyhoo, I'm heading to VA today for a much deserved vacation and to see if I can't persuade someone to hire me. Maybe I can even find a dude or two who wants to help me start a church.
God only knows......

Iron Sharpens Iron

There is a Proverb from the book of Proverbs in the Bible that says, "iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another." This verse is generally used for men's fellowships and whatnot, but I think the scope is a little more general. That is, the process of maturing happens on the forge of relationships, interactions, and communication.

Spiritual maturity cannot happen as a monk, unless that monk is with a group of other monks. The key is not inside ourselves, it is outside ourselves, sourced in the God-man Jesus, and actualized among both his followers and the rest of the world.

Unlike some people would have us believe, Christian discipleship is a relatively quick and easy process. If we take most of the apostles (including Paul) as an example, the path to spiritual maturity can take about three years, give or take.

Don't get me wrong, there are aspects of the discipleship process that will never be complete as long as we live. It is what many theologians see as the tension of living life in both the "already complete" and the "not yet complete."

Jesus provides us with the already part, and other people help us along the not yet plane. Sometimes the "process-oriented" people emphasize the distinctions in the process to such an extent that we can develop classes of Christians.

I like how Jesus made clear that even the least of the least Christian is greater than John the Baptist, as far as God is concerned. We can get so caught up with rank and file issues that we forget that every role is essential. We need others if we are going to be sharpened, whether that sharpening comes from the young or the super old.

Sorry, but the only rank in Christianity belongs to Jesus.

Finally!!

Well, I've got everything done (I think!) for graduation. The only thing left is to sign a few out-processing documents and walk the aisle in my festal garments.

I've been thinking about the discipleship process and church and blah-dee-blah-da-blooblooo, and I think I've come up with something. I think it's kind of cool, so I won't reveal it just yet (although I bet someone else somewhere has already come up with the stuff!).

I wanted to discuss some of the "purposes" of the church, and why I want to move beyond the purpose driven model. The church has one mission, and that is to make disciples, or build people to follow Jesus. Worship can be done anywhere, and if the church does its mission, it will glorify God. In fact, God is not glorified if the church's emphasis is just "worship time." The church's purpose is not fellowship, but fellowship serves the discipleship purpose. The same with ministry, ministry is not the church's purpose, but disciples will serve others based on the nature of our Teacher. Evangelism is not the purpose of the church, but is merely one part of the discipleship journey.

Discipleship would certainly be incomplete without these things, but they are merely aspects of Discipleship.

And discipleship is much more than education. Church should not be a laboratory, but should provide "on the job training" as its main teaching tool. Real learning and real growth happen in real life, not on some desert island away from the rabble of society.

More to come later.