Kruse Kronicle
In this semi-critical review, Christianity Today’s John Wilson parallels George Lakoff’s book, Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think with Brian McLaren’s newest book, “Everything Must Change.”
In return Melvin Bray interviews Brian McLaren to clarify some of the issues raised by the review here
The greatest barrier to a clear Kingdom vision may be a misunderstanding of what a priority- missional community looks like. I acknowledge that most Christian churches have a missional aspect. But when one examines a missional-priority church more closely, one discovers a significant difference between church outreach and a missional church. That difference begins at the theological foundation and ultimately finds expression in practices inherent to the broader Kingdom vision. Practically speaking missional-priority means spending more time with the missing than with Christian friends
Individually some of us do this at work and in our neighborhoods. But leaders “who are in the know” become responsible for building a culture of missional priority believers.
How does a conventional church reverse its direction?
In short, missional leaders begin by systematically talking to the community about process salvation and each individual’s place in the process.
Missional leaders help the community understand the ease and simplicity of entering into salvation’s process and correct the common held belief that it is the Christian’s responsibility to take God to the missing. That old container is removed by helping the community understand that no one takes God to anyone. God is already in the lives of their co-workers, friends, and family. Missional leaders teach the community the simplicity of helping their friends connect the dot.
This becomes the center-piece of the assembly. It’s talked about every time the community comes together
For the conventional church the man in the pulpit has to consider missional culture building as important as sermon building if change is to take place. He has the pulpit. He has influence. But he must have the wisdom and the understand as well as a strong passion for developing a missional community of believers If all these things come together a faith community has the potential of transcending the attractional consumer church and sparking a community to belief and action.
But without a total commitment to the idea of missional culture building on the part of leadership, it’s a stillborn thought.
I haven’t given up on the conventional church as many have, but it would sadden me to think historian Barbara Tuchman was right when she said…
“In the scaled of history, inertia always outweighs that of change”
A man born blind man asks a philosopher to describe the color green.
“The color green is like soothing and soft music,” he said.
Later that day another blind man asks the philosopher, “What is the color green?”
“It’s like soft satin, smooth to the touch.”
A few days later the philosopher sees the two blind men arguing and hitting each other over the head with bottles. The man born blind says, “It’s like music.” The second blind man is saying, “It’s soft like satin.”
Years later, the man born blind has his sight restored.
The philosopher finds the man with new eyes sitting in the middle of a garden admiring its natural beauty.
“Well, now you know what the color green is,” says the philosopher.
“That’s true I heard some this morning.”
I discovered an interesting post at Church of the Masses, a blog authored by a script writer/consultant named Barbara Nicolosi. In her post called Somebody Gets It, she references an article by a gentleman John Steel, (never heard of him). What I find interesting is the insightful advice Mr. Steel gives for influencing culture. This is important for the Christian community since culture has insipidly, over the last 50 years, shaped the Christian community. No longer does Christianity influence culture, conversely culture has become the engine that drives Christianity. Need some examples? Ask me.
Here’s an excerpt from the post.
Culture is shaped by a small number of gatekeepers. Majority perspectives have little bearing on culture formation. Instead, elites dominate. Neuhaus notes: “Even though [these elites] may be a minority of the population, they succeed in presenting themselves as ‘mainstream’ through their control of powerful institutions in the media, in entertainment, in the arbitrations of literary taste, in the great research universities and professional associations, and in the worlds of business and advertisement that seek the approval of those who control the commanding heights of culture.”
Mr. Steel attempts to provide a Christian sociology that would help Christians with money see their way through to investment in culture.
If John Steel is correct in his analysis then many faith leaders are now viewing “the culture” as a new, laudable strategic goal. But such recognition needs a deep theological perspective and appropriate cultural discernment to have any renewing effect.
John Steel gives Luke 16: 1-9 (specifically verse 9) a new twist.
I am still searching for the complete article in Provocations at The Trinity Forum
I could post about the Super Sunday combo birthday party (wife’s BD) we had this evening at our home, but I prefer to muse for a minute on the thousand of blogrolls on the thousands of weblogs across the blogosphere. I wonder how many of us even read the links we list on our blogs. The ones I’ve visited the last few days are full of dead and outdated links. Do we put them on our weblogs because they are ‘real’ places we actually visit or are they really just favors given to help cyber-friends increase their traffic? As I am typing this post I’m looking at my blogroll.
We stood in line sliding the seventy pound suitcases across the concrete floor. Slowly we inched closer. Our bags were loaded down with both non-prescription and prescription drugs. Ukrainian customs laws were clear. All medications must be declared.
We had to make a decision. We discussed our options. Should we lie to the customs officials or tell the truth. Telling the truth meant losing our medicines to the corrupt functionaries.
We knew the stories. We had our own personal experiences. Declare the medicine and the sick would suffer the consequences of going without antibiotics.
The choice was easy. We lied to the agents for the cause of Christ.
There are occasions when the absolute moral laws of the Bible find themselves in conflict. When this happens one is under obligation to follow the higher law. Moral and ethical laws possess a hierarchy that necessitates certain rules to be elevated and others to be subordinate. To unthinkingly submit to ‘absolute bible obedience’ without regard for situations, people, circumstances, and consequences becomes little more than an exercise in rigorous rule keeping and a breach of Christian duty.
Yes Proverbs 12:22 says, “…the Lord detests lying lips” but there are instances where biblical commands must be broken in order to honor others. Remember Ex. 1:15-20 when God rewarded the Hebrew midwives for breaking the law by lying so the baby boys could live?
God withholds accountability from those who demonstrate mercy to the innocent rather than truth-telling to the guilty.
Three ‘trends’: economic, cultural and ecological are converging at the very same moment in time; creating (perhaps for the very first time) a counterweight powerful enough to balance America’s insatiable appetite. An era of pragmatism and restraint that this country hasn’t seen for quite a while. Projecting out further in the years to follow, Boomers may actually contribute to this trend. As they age, they will inevitably downsize their homes and their lives. Meanwhile, Generation Y will hit their prime earning years in an economy that is growing far less quickly and their ability to spend and therefore impact the economy will be muted.
Taken from a Coming Period of Pragmatism
A friend at Starbucks on Saturday. Four or five couples at Bob Evans on Sunday. This is as close as it gets to “church.” The idea is most representative of what the early Christians did two millennium ago. They spent time together, ate together and shared together, Hence they knew each other well.
This is what our little group of Jesus followers prefers; meaningful relationships outside the rigid structures of America’s skewed understanding of church. Before I go on, I need to tell you that we all still attend the Sunday assemble. We just no longer do “church work” as defined by the institution. We’re not willing to fall into the trappings of traditional church. And how do we keep from being sucked back in? As Gordon MacKenzie, says, “You go into orbit.”
Have you got a minute? Good. Because I want introduce you to the concept of orbiting. Orbiting is responsible creativity that energetically explores and operates beyond the gravity of church models, patterns, accepted norms, and contemporary standards while remaining connected to the spirit of what western culture has come to define as church.
To enter orbit around the “contemporary-traditional-church” is to find a place of balance where you benefit from the resources of the organization without becoming entombed in the institution. How do you enter orbit? By seizing the best course of action for turning one’s vision into a reality while avoiding the pallid path of “church appropriateness.” You’re ready for all this, right? Good. I’ll go then.
To be of optimum value to the “appropriate church” endeavor, you have to invest enough individuality to counteract the drag of the “appropriate church,” but not so much that you escape the pull altogether. I want to hover just beyond the gravitational pull of the “appropriate church’s” programs, ministries and premeditated Sunday morning worship. Through the measured assertion of my own uniqueness I’m reestablishing a dynamic relationship with the appropriate church. I find its gravitational drag an asset that keeps me from floating out into the overwhelming nothingness of what is embryonic, emerging and still evolving. Yet I must be carefully not to allow that same gravity to suck me into the church trichobezoar, or I’ll find myself in a different kind of nothingness. The nothingness of normalcy made stagnant by the contemporary consumer’s “appropriate church.” Orbiting the appropriate and normal is the only place where you can tap your one-of-a-kind magic, your limitless creativity.
There’s a subculture within mainstream society today that is extremely antagonistic toward communities of faith because they perceive them as oppressive, homophobic institutions. I’m part of that Christian community and I love God’s people, but I’m also brave enough to stand up and admit that at times the church has been homophobic, unjust, and downright mean.
Do we extend grace to the people who have tasted the pain of divorce? Do we show grace to people who are divorced and remarried, an area Jesus specifically called sin? If so, then how do we not show grace to people in a sexual relationship that Jesus never mentions?
If we’re going to stamp out the lingering antagonism and have any legitimacy to speak out on the issue of marriage, it will have to come out of the reality of our lives, not simply our doctrine.
Here’s a thought.
Is the church brave enough to step out of the box and champion the call for justice on behalf of gay and lesbian people? If we stand on the other side of the aisle and allow discrimination against homosexuals and lesbians to continue without a hand raised or a voice uttered, we’ll find it’s difficult to say convincingly, “But we love you in the name of Jesus.”
To show the love of God we must stand up for the civil rights of those whose orientation is homosexual on the basis of discrimination. When we stand with them they’ll see us as their friend. It’s not compromise, neither is it a statement that says we have bought into homosexual eroticism. We simply recognize that discrimination is wrong and stand with them on the matter.
When we minister to this growing population of God’s creation, in that setting, and on their turf, we’re going to be surrounded by people not living the biblical ideal. I don’t affirm that, but neither do I condemn them.
Politics doesn’t excite me, never did. And it’s not much different this time around. Impossible promises glibly made and, in the end, broken.
Example: John Edwards ran an advertisement in Iowa saying that if he was elected President, he would use his power by taking away the health insurance of the members of Congress and even the members of his administration if universal health care wasn’t passed by July of 2009. Yea, right. Effective rhetoric—but based on a false premise because a president has absolutely no power to rescind federal health insurance for members of Congress. So much for John Edwards.
Yet when all the dust, debris, and dung of the 2008 campaign trail clears, Ron Paul stand as a single breath of fresh O2. No, I don’t agree with everything Ron Paul says, but hey—I’ve been encouraged by his campaign because it’s been heartening to not only watch a candidate talk about limited government, humble foreign policy, and individual liberty over the last several months, but to see his support actually grow
as he does.
