A few miscellaneous theological reflections from my recent surfing through the web-world. Thoughts about Shane Claiborne and the politics of being followers of Jesus in the world’s only contemporary empire. Musings on homosexuality from Walter Wink. And apparently megachurch isn’t just for christians anymore….

Shane Claiborne and the rich young ruler — “Claiborne’s is another powerful and increasngly fashionable voice calling the church to be a radical Jesus movement again (see also ’Being a disciple of Jesus is not enough’). But it still seems to me that this desire to revert to the pattern of Jesus-discipleship arises essentially as a reaction against the excesses, hypocrisy, idolatry or ineffectiveness of the modern American church; it is of only limited value…. The instruction to sell personal possessions and give to the needy, therefore, forms part of an eschatological vocation. The prophetic community that will proclaim the impending reign of God over his people, the coming transformation of Israel, will have to let go of the normal material securities of life and trust in the Father to provide.”

Jesus: Enemy of the State — “Jesus was a revolutionary. He brought a message that spoke to the political issues of the day, and offered an alternative. To some it seemed foolish, to many it seemed dangerous. But to a few it seemed like the only chance at a life of complete peace from all the tumult of high gas prices, outsourced slavery, broken families, a war with no end, abortion, and the crisis of immigration.”
– RELATED: see Steve Holt Jr.’s series of posts on Christian Politics (Part 1, 2, 3, and 4)

Walter Wink on Homosexuality — “[T]he Bible quite clearly takes a negative view of homosexuality, in those few instances where it is mentioned at all. And the repugnance felt toward homosexuality was not just that it was deemed unnatural but also that it was considered unJewish, representing yet one more incursion of pagan civilization into Jewish life. But this conclusion does not solve the hermeneutical problem of our attitude toward homosexuality today. For there are other sexual attitudes, practices and restrictions which are normative in Scripture but which we no longer accept as normative.”

Megachurch has the frills but doesn’t fit the mold — The motto under Mile Hi’s big, domed sanctuary, a $10 million, 1,500-seat hall that opened in April, is It’s different here. “We use some of the same approaches and tools as megachurches, but Mile Hi is profoundly unique,” said senior minister Roger Teel.Mile Hi Church teaches the science of mind and spirit. It seeks to blend science and religion — drawing from elements of all the world’s great faith traditions.

When you spend a few years in ministry as I have, you inevitably come across churches that are dying, or struggling, or on the verge of crisis, or just living in fear of church-death. Honestly, I suspect this fear drives more churches than we realize, even those that appear healthy, vibrant, and “young.”

A friend sent me a link to this article by Greg at Disciples Fellowship, “Oh for More Dead Churches.”

We need churches which are willing to die to themselves and be alive to God. Dying to self for a church means letting the very existence of the church be less important than God’s work in this world…. The church which becomes thoroughly caught up into the Missio Dei is the one that cares not at all for its own meetings, building, funding, or existence in the world. It becomes so focused on joining God in His work that nothing else matters. Such a church is truly alive because it is dead to itself.

Of course, it will be no surprise that I think Greg is definitely onto something here. I’ve said similar things before. But this is not a popular message. And it’s really hard to sell as a viable church growth strategy complete with conferences, books, podcasts, and DVDs. The message of Jesus — the real message — is rarely suitable for convenient packaging.

In truth, many of us love our churches too much (or in the wrong way), just as we love our possessions and our security and our own lives. We love and defend the existence of church, our idealized dreams for church, or the benefits we get from church. And when we do that we actually destroy the kind of community which God desires for us.

All this reminds me of something I once read from Fred Peatross:

“I hate to say it, but we have a bad case of ecclesiolatry. Our phrases tell on us. We don’t love Christ, we love the church. We don’t partner with Jesus in an effort beyond-the-church; we serve and work for the church. We don’t tell people about the crucified and risen Lord, we tell them about the church.”

Weakness is not cool.

We are scared to death to boast in our weakness because it violates culture (best foot forward, turn your good side to the camera), but if all of us in the Church would boast in our weakness together, we would become a Gospel-suffused community of honesty, brokenness, repentance, grace, forgiveness and restoration. In short, we would be a community of joyful intimacy.
– Glenn Lucke

Then again, not much about Jesus seems cool by our standards. So trying to make him and his people appear cool, pretty, successful, or powerful looks like the wrong strategy to me.

Awhile back I had a conversation with a friend who leads a church planting organization in which we talked about various models for initiating new faith communities in North America.

He expressed what I suspect is a common reservation about the kind of model that is commonly called “simple church” or “house church.” Of course, these terms differ in some important ways, but in the context of my conversation with him they were overlapping ideas, at the least. More than that, these terms represented a way of viewing church life as less programmatic, less institutional, and perhaps even more organic (another troublesome word).

His hesitation about house church-type models was summed up in one word: Sustainability.

It’s a reasonable question given the forces of mobility that so frequently pull people away from their lives in one place to another: “How long can such a ‘church’ hope to survive?” But is that all there is to sustainability?

Jason Evans made some interesting comments last week on why he likes “house churches” even though he doesn’t prefer to promote it as a “model” for how things ought to be. His focus is on … that’s right … sustainability.

He suggests four ways that such simple faith communities prove more sustainable than other types of churches:

Economically – clearly, it’s less expensive.

Leadership – he sees it as less personality driven and therefore sustainable even as different individuals move in and out over the years. Personally, I think this one cuts both ways.

Environmentally – makes use of less space and particularly of space that already exists in the life of the group.

Generosity – it leaves greater resources free for helping others, promoting justice, and pursuing mission.

There are several good points here and more in his additional comments. I think it’s important that we begin to seriously re-evaluate our evaluations. That is to say, re-think how even define our notions of sustainability, our measurements of success, our definitions of effectiveness.

Because so often, as hard as we try, we continue to be pulled back into our modern institutional frameworks, even when we’re trying to imagine something new.

Part One – Restoration: the promise of being right
___________________

Where Restorationism entices us with the promise of “being right,” Consumerism offers the irresistible promise of “being fulfilled” or “complete.” You really can “have it all.” If only ….

Instead of being the Church of the Lost Detail, we become the Church of the Lost Emotion or Lost Connection. Or the Church of the Lasting Experience.

Instead of the Church of the Last Detail, we become the Church of the Latest Innovation or Latest Methodology. Or the Church of the Loftiest Vision.

Consumerism has a two-pronged strategy for its promise.

First, it presumes to tell us what we’re missing, usually something we didn’t even know we needed until the salesman, performer, advertiser, marketer, or preacher told us.

Second, it offers exactly the product that will fill that gaping hole in our lives.

It’s a strategy constructed on persistent feelings of inadequacy and incompleteness; and the marketer’s desire is not to heal that condition but exacerbate it. Because the open wound of deep need will keep us always coming back.

Of course, the economic value of consumable products is their temporary nature. The hamburger tastes good, but soon I’m “hungry” again. The soap cleanses, but I keep getting dirty. The new technology appeases my lust for the shiny new thing. But soon a shinier, newer technology will catch my eye and leave me wanting more. And the provider of such products is more than happy to keep me on the line with one more promise of “being fulfilled.”

Just like Restorationism it’s a promise that fails to satisfy. But its allure remains strong, especially in a culture and economy driven by its mythical promise.

From One Insatiable Drive to Another
We believe the lie in one realm and soon transfer it to the other. We are victims of consumerism, driven by its vacuous promise to purchase and acquire and accumulate. Then we become purveyors of the same mythology when we use such methods to enhance the appeal of “spiritual things.”

We live in a world constantly driven by hype and soon the language of hype and promotion is all we know. Listen carefully to the marketing and presentation of religious events and experiences, to the advertising for churches. Even listen to how friends talk about how “amazing!” or “life changing!” or “thrilling!” it was to attend this christian concert or to hear that speaker or visit a favorite faraway megachurch.

And without meaning to we participate in a cycle of abuse which harms us all, because we promise things that can never truly feed us. Our insatiable need to “be fulfilled” drives us to listen to and buy these consumeristic promises.

One More Thing…
Consumerism has a way of always promising “one more thing.” It tells us constantly that This Thing will make us complete, fulfill our need or make us more effective, bigger, better, stronger, more beautiful …. Soon our churches are convinced without trying that what we need most is Organization. Or better leadership. Or more professional worship events. Or a better building. Or more emotion or a stronger connection with God.

And the god of Consumerism tells us relentlessly that This Thing is the one thing we lack. The one thing we need that will make it all work, make it all worthwhile. “You still don’t have it all.” There is one thing you lack.

Of course, Jesus once told a man that “You still lack one thing.”

But that sermon really doesn’t sell very well.

In his excellent little book, The Church on the Other Side, Brian McLaren tells the truth on Restoration Churches (of all varieties). He offers an eclectic mix of pet restoration projects emphasized by various groups which serves to strengthen his point and remind us restorationists that we’re distinctive only in the things we choose to restore.

The restored church looks at problems in the churches today and says, “Aha! We’ve lost our way! We must go back to the New Testament to rediscover our original vibrancy.” This is an intelligent realization. Unfortunately, what tends to happen next is that we latch onto some peripheral matter of early church life and prescribe it as the missing feature. It’s what my friend Peter Morris calls the Last Detail, or the Lost Detail — the thing that will make all the difference once it is restored: “speaking in tongues!” “the five-fold ministry …” “a love feast” … “no church buildings!” “no paid pastors!” … “a plurality of elders!” … “healings!” ….

Inevitably, after being seized upon as “the secret,” this lost detail assumes a significance far beyond all sane proportions. Eventually, maintaining and celebrating this distinctive detail becomes the church’s raison d’etre. After all, it’s what makes “us” special.

Restorationism offers the appealing notion of being right, of “getting it right.” Making sure we pay attention to and restore the Lost or Last Detail — even down to the Least & Littlest Details — gives us a steely confidence that we are right. It makes us into a kind of Super Protestant, more faithful and fully restored than the restorers who went before us and the restorers who went before them.

We search for the things “they must’ve missed” and look for the tiny distinction that will hold the promise of finally “getting it right.” At its best, it is a sincere pursuit of what matters. At its worst, a kind of Prayer of Jabez for Intellectuals. Search for the single verse or two nobody ever noticed before, take what it says (or worse, what it doesn’t say), build a doctrine around it, blow it completely out of proportion, and declare it the secret to “real Christianity.”

The promise of Restorationism ultimately fails to satisfy. It simply cannot be sustained. And, it seems to me, it’s being abandoned in many Church of Christ circles because the past couple decades have led us to two indispensable discoveries — the limits of rationalism and the limitlessness of grace.

This change may be a step up. Or it may be an opportunity to heed an even emptier promise.

Up next — Consumerism: the promise of being fulfilled

I have some more thoughts on this later, but here’s a link to a discussion at Jesus Creed on whether the American Church resembles (in God’s view) the Israelites to whom Isaiah 58 and Amos 5 were written. The comment thread is well worth reading and considering … and indicative of how difficult a subject this actually is for us.

Patrick Meade makes a valuable observation about our current condition:

While few would say it out loud, most members believe that the work of the church is done by the hired ministers and elders (and deacons, if they are given solid, measurable tasks). The members went from “workers” to “consumers of Christian services.” I don’t know how to fix this; there is only so much that teaching and preaching about it has accomplished. The fact remains: when we bought into the concept of hired, located ministers, there was an unintended side effect. Full disclosure: I am a hired, located minister and want to stay that way! If I am to be honest, I must admit that my position is not a harmless one.

What’s most striking to me about this quote isn’t the heart wrenching implications I hear in the last line (a realization I know intimately), as powerful as that is.

No, the thing that jumps out at me is that ministers and church leaders are often aware that the professionalization of Christian ministry is problematic, but “there is only so much that teaching and preaching about it has accomplished.” Something is amiss and preaching about it isn’t making much of a difference. I have to believe there are some specific reasons why we’re failing to make a dent in this problem.

Those reasons are what I’ve been digging around at here for the past couple weeks. More digging to come.

For several years now I keep running into church bulletins that contain prayer lists encouraging me to Remember Our Military (or some other similar exhortation). This is troublesome for a couple reasons. On a personal level, I think to myself, “I don’t have a military.” But more than that I feel confident that “we” — the church — don’t have one either.

Can we please search for some other exhortation to use? One that might deepen our care and mindfulness not only of those men and women to whom we are related, or those that wear stars and stripes, but all those who are serving, living, and dying in the midst of violent conflict? Allies and enemies. Victims and victimizers. Military and missionaries and peacekeepers and refugees.

I’m sure some churches have tried for better language. Any suggestions?

“Bless me Lord. Bless me Lord.
You know that’s all I ever hear.”

In light of the other stuff I’ve said here recently, I thought it might be good to refer you to Keith Green’s classically prophetic song “Asleep in the Light.” So I found this video containing the song on You Tube.

I hesitated to put it up since it contains cheesy worship-lyrics and pictures that sometimes do, sometimes don’t really get at the heart of what Green is saying. But then I got to thinking about it and the worship graphics seemed particularly appropriate.

It left me thinking, “I wonder why we don’t ever sing THIS contemporary christian song in our worship assemblies.”

Quite awhile back my friend Justin Baeder — Harding graduate, Church of Christ kid, Seattle church planter, geeky technology dude with a love for WordPress, and all around cool, postmoderny kind of guy — wrote an article entitled Moving Beyond the Worship Service. It’s good stuff. I encourage you to read it over.

Look at the sermon topics in a seeker-sensitive church, and you will find things such as “Prayer = tools for solving problems” and “How to have a great marriage.” Through sermons like these and uplifting worship music, the worship service promises everything we need to be successful Christians. If you want to go deeper, you can join a home Bible study or class, but that’s optional. Real church happens on the stage every Sunday.

There is a good conversation (in three six eight parts — start here or work backwards) going on over at Patrick Mead’s blog about the ‘instrumental music’ questions in the history of Churches of Christ and Christian Churches/Disciples of Christ. I say ‘good conversation’ to mean that I like very much the tone and nature of what Patrick is offering and the responses that others are providing.

But I will openly admit to a deep ambivalence about the subject matter itself. I find myself agreeing wholeheartedly with what Chris Gonzalez says :

I have spent 20 years having this conversation and still the same conversation is being had. Maybe I am impatient. Perhaps I am disloyal. Maybe I am just a wimp. Whatever the case, I am glad to be, for the first time ever, an outsider to this conversation.

I also feel like an outsider to this conversation even though I am still embedded in the Church of Christ communities I have always known as my heritage. I just have no motivation or interest in this subject. It frequently feels for me a subject entirely beside the point.

That said, I think there is something even deeper about my mild consternation.

Recently, I have begun to sense a growing tide of opinion among a fairly good-sized number of my Church of Christ friends that embodies a kind of unspoken “if only…” regard for instrumental music in worship. At times it appears almost as a glazed-eyes fascination with all things christian musicky. I think there are a number of influences in play here. (more…)

One of the dangers of trying to blog consistently is that you can easily keep going back to the same sources for inspiration. Pretty soon readers start saying, “Man, I hope __________ doesn’t stop blogging, otherwise Jimmy will have nothing to say.”

Oh well, here’s another great quote stolen from my friend Steve Holt, Jr. who stole it from another blog I like whose author stole it from a famous theologian …

“If Christianity is to become aware of what it is, we must abandon the pastoral church which takes care of people, which is the usual form of the Western church. Instead, we have to call to life a Christian community church. Either we set about this church reform by ourselves, or it will be forced on us by the loss of church members.”

– Jurgen Moltmann, The Source of Life

Yeah … what he said. And then I appreciate too what JasonZ has to say in the comment thread of his original post

… the church mutates into something other than what God intended… when a local church’s members view the church’s life, structures, services and programs as existing primarily to meet their needs. The local church then becomes a vendor of religious goods, services and programs. It becomes a consumer church. It breeds over-reliance on the pastoral staff to teach, lead, and program so that its members’ needs are fulfilled. […]

Now compare that to Jesus’ simple plan to introduce people into God’s kingdom (Matthew 28:18-20). Go out into the real world. Help people become Jesus’ apprentices. Immerse them into the healing transforming reality of the Trinity by joining authentic Christian community. And teach them to obey everything Jesus embodied, demonstrated and announced. Jesus commissions us with a very theocentric missional agenda for the church’s life and it is very different from the contemporary consumer model prevalent on the western religious landscape.

Yeah … what he said, too.

Update: There are additional thoughts on this quote at A51T15

A couple of quotes from a favorite writer of mine, Dallas Willard.

I first read Divine Conspiracy (actually, I had read it before, but this time I ‘got it’) as I was preparing to help my former employers take their church to ‘the next level.’ Of course, it worked out that we had different ideas about what constituted that kind of progress. Because of Willard (and several others) I became convinced that we should focus on a path of spiritual formation and discipleship, as opposed to programmatic church growth.

This book was part of the unraveling of my professional ministry life.

[Our current situation] is largely caused and sustained by the basic message that we constantly hear from Christian pulpits. We are flooded with what I have called “gospels of sin management,” in one form or another, while Jesus’ invitation to eternal life now — right in the midst of work, business, and profession — remains for the most part ignored and unspoken. […]

The condition so eloquently deplored by numerous leaders … is nothing but the natural consequence of the basic message of the church as it is heard today. It would be foolish to expect anything else than precisely what we have got.

– Dallas Willard, The Divine Conspiracy

So, if we wanted to stop getting what we’re getting, what would we have to do?

Start with the life of Jesus shaping the behavior and thinking of disciples, says Willard:

Do I as a minister have the faith to undertake the work of disciple-making? Is my first aim to make disciples? Or do I just run an operation?…

Now, some might be shocked to hear that what the “church”—the disciples gathered—really needs is not more people, more money, better buildings or programs, more education, or more prestige. Christ’s gathered people, the church, has always been at its best when it had little or none of these. All it needs to fulfill Christ’s purposes on earth is the quality of life he makes real in the life of his disciples. Given that quality, the church will prosper from everything that comes its way as it makes clear and available on earth the “life that is life indeed.”

– Dallas Willard, The Great Omission (via re:generate)

“… the church has always been at its best when it had little or none of these.”

I think I would have to agree.