Community is a vital concept in understanding and experiencing Christ in the cultural context where we live. The New Monasticism (NM) presents 12 Marks that define the core values that guide their community life. The humility, thoroughness, and visionary realism of these 12 Marks is encouraging to see the diversity of the 12 contribuitng authors. My critique is that these 12 Marks are not the same as the ordung or rule of a Catholic monasticism community which has been pruned and lived for many centuries. Nevertheless, these 12 Marks are refreshing and indicate that God is doing a new/old thing in this quest for community. John Michael Talbot's monastic community, Little Portion (I visited there last August), is recognized by the Pope and has many of these same 12 Marks.
[The Rutba book will turn the heat up; please feel free to interact, lament, critique the authors, me, or your class peers. The blog format is intended to foster interaction and generous debate and discussion.]
1) Describe the benefit and pitfalls of intentional communities like the NM movement.
2) Reflect upon Miroslav Volf's (he is considered by some to be the brightest contemporary theological star in the cosmos) brief comment (p. 45) on his primary theological maxim--hospitality-->the God who welcomes. [In the OT, hospitality is a sacred rite, the NT also reflects this theological principle in community life. Jesus turned the water into wine in a little Cana town as an act of hospitality; he invites his followers to table fellowship--communion, at the marriage supper of Lord--and we are again invited to table fellowship-->come! Generous hospitality is based upon grace and invitation that are organic to our new nature that reflects God heart.]
3) What does it mean to lament as God's people (p. 62)? Describe a lament experience in your church life.
4) Consider the discrepancy between the novitiate in a NM and the local church. Discuss your insights regarding how you would design the formation of disciples in your church, contrast with what presently utilized.
5) Reciprocal living in koinonia is the nature of the NT church with harbingers of this kingdom community foreshadowed in OT Israel. Reflect upon the concept of church covenant with annual membership renewal.
6) The Rutba and Las Abejas stories can provide a backdrop for this question. How can we work for peace and justice to be signposts of the kingdom of God-->prophets in our context?
7) How does any of the NM 12 Markers connect with your experience and church life as a community of the kingdom of God?
The following questions are suggestions for interviewing persons who live in some type of alternative, intentional society (Please adapt as you sense the need to change the focus and follow the flow of the interview):
1. Describe how you became a member of your group, and why you remain active in it?
2. What are the core values, rules, and rituals of your group?
3. How do leaders function in your group?
4. What purpose or need does your group fulfill in your life?
Post a summary report for the class to interact with in the blog. Thanks!
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Field Research # 2: Rock Daddy
I interviewed several Christians, however, due to the smallness of my town, I was not able to find other faiths other than Judaism. I did speak with a Mennonite lady, however, since they don't have t.v. the question about her favorite commercial was a bit difficult. I used the questions that Dr. Nissley posted and modified them in that instead of just asking about commercials from the Superbowl, I asked what their favorite commercial was and why.
For the first question people responded with a variety of things that they enjoyed doing, however, when I probed further to try to understand why, the majority of the reasons were because it either involved their families or reminded them of their families. So family seemed to be a recurring them for people and their hobbies.
For question two it was a toss up between liking the commercial because it made them laugh and liking the commercial because it reminded them of family. So, again it seems that people associated with things that made them think about their families.
For the final question, practically everyone guessed what the painting was (including the Jewish person), so when I read the scripture, they didn't change their thoughts or what the told me the story was behind the picture. I did find it interesting that practically everyone made the comment of, "I thought Jesus was suppose to be a sleep in the bow". In the painting it looks like Jesus is in the stern teaching his disciples. Another comment I liked was when one of the interviewees, couldn't get over how violent the storm was. In his mind the Sea of Galilee was not that big, but the painting definitely made him think otherwise.
All in all I enjoying talking to others and liked the fact that people were able to discern different things about the painting. I thought it was an interesting way to incorporate art into talking to others.
For the first question people responded with a variety of things that they enjoyed doing, however, when I probed further to try to understand why, the majority of the reasons were because it either involved their families or reminded them of their families. So family seemed to be a recurring them for people and their hobbies.
For question two it was a toss up between liking the commercial because it made them laugh and liking the commercial because it reminded them of family. So, again it seems that people associated with things that made them think about their families.
For the final question, practically everyone guessed what the painting was (including the Jewish person), so when I read the scripture, they didn't change their thoughts or what the told me the story was behind the picture. I did find it interesting that practically everyone made the comment of, "I thought Jesus was suppose to be a sleep in the bow". In the painting it looks like Jesus is in the stern teaching his disciples. Another comment I liked was when one of the interviewees, couldn't get over how violent the storm was. In his mind the Sea of Galilee was not that big, but the painting definitely made him think otherwise.
All in all I enjoying talking to others and liked the fact that people were able to discern different things about the painting. I thought it was an interesting way to incorporate art into talking to others.
Sessions 6 & 7: Rock Daddy
1. Whatever is going on or influencing us at the present time in our life, whether it be a new fad in our culture, a revival going on at our church or where we are in our walk with Jesus it is going to impact how we approach worship and how we interact with others in regards to telling them about Christ. As human beings we are easily influenced by outside stimuli. For instance, say you are sitting watching t.v. before dinner, when a commercial comes on for the local pizza place. Suddenly, you have a craving for pizza and if you are lucky and your spouse hasn't started making anything yet, you will probably end up ordering pizza. It is the same with all the other aspects of our lives.
2. The Jackson Pollock piece is very appealing to me and makes me want to look at it more closely. It causes me to think about what the artist was trying to convey in his work. I find it interesting and would be something that I would not mind hanging on my wall in my house. The art work by Andy Warhol on the other hand is merely his rendition of a common place item during his era. It neither moves me or excites me. I acknowledge the fact that it is art in that he felt some urging to paint it, however, it is not something I would hang on my wall in my house.
3. I think that the cultural mindset is on a pendulum and that modernism is merely a part of the spectrum, just as PM is. Obviously, it is the different philosophies that the pendulum moves through and not necessarily the titles (modernism, post modernism, etc.). Therefore, because the pendulum continually moves, modernism is on it way out and PM is the next philosophy. No one can tell how long the pendulum will travel through a philosophy, but you can be certain that nothing lasts forever. For people to not recognize or accept that fact and think that they can hold onto the past are only fooling themselves.
4. In this day and age of instant gratification, I think that to engage and entice the unbeliever that is out there, you need to be able to relate to them. In my opinion this means showing video clips and tailoring your sermon to what is going on today. Still convey the message but present it in such a way as to connect with your audience. I envision using video clips, songs and pictures to help the audience connect with what I am telling them.
5. I would have to say that in my church, family and local community the prominent art method is music. My church is very much about their music and how it relates or connects with the congregation, based on which service they are attending (traditional/blended/contemporary). In my family my wife is part of the praise team, all three of my kids are in the children's choir and I personally love to sing and listen to music. In our town there is always some kind of concert or program going on that has music. The method that is probably the next prevalent would be theater. My church again likes to put on both adult and children's plays, musicals and dramas. And again my children are involved in those and in our town we actually have a theater where performances are being performed weekly.
6. In my life and what I hope to be, a pastor, the value and emphasis of words is very important. To me if you can effectively and efficiently convey your message then it is just a matter of the other person responding and going from there. I'm not saying that you have to use big words and sound overly important, but I am saying that you need to be able to communicate in such a way that the person you are talking to can understand what you are saying.
Sacrament to me is the act of communion. Growing up we took communion every week, the same way. At my current church we only take communion so many times a year and we usually incorporate feet washing along with it. Rarely do we share in communion in the same way as we did the last time we came together. For me communion symbolizes the sacrifice Christ made for me and it is my way of remembering that. Therefore, I greatly value and believe that communion is important.
The arts, are an expression of our souls and therefore our inner most desires. No matter what format of art you do and no matter how well you do it you are still sharing and giving of yourself. I feel the arts are very important in that if we didn't have them, then we would be no different than a bunch of robots.
7. I define discipleship as the act of making disciples. A disciple is someone who follows a master and believes in his ideals and then spreads them. Since art can be defined as any method of expressing oneself, I would say that art definitely plays a role in discipleship. Its role is to act as common ground, upon which you meet someone else. Once you are on common ground and create a meaningful relationship then you can begin to share and exchange ideas with them. Which in turn allows you to witness to them in order to help them become a follower also.
I feel that I have died to myself. Once I committed to becoming a pastor, I feel that I gave my life over to God. That is not to say that I don't on many occasions try to hurry along or change God's timing and action plan for me, but in the end I always come back to him, humble and bowed, offering up my life yet again.
Can you kill a dead person? That question has multiple answers and also sparks multiple questions. Such as in what sense are they dead? Are they physically dead? If so, then no you can't kill them. Are they spiritually dead? Then, yes you can physically kill them which in turn causes them to live eternally, albeit in hell. Are they emotionally dead? Again, you can physically kill them, but I feel that someone who is emotionally dead is merely going through the motions and is just waiting for their bodies to give up. If someone is emotionally dead I don't think you can kill them because they are already dead.
2. The Jackson Pollock piece is very appealing to me and makes me want to look at it more closely. It causes me to think about what the artist was trying to convey in his work. I find it interesting and would be something that I would not mind hanging on my wall in my house. The art work by Andy Warhol on the other hand is merely his rendition of a common place item during his era. It neither moves me or excites me. I acknowledge the fact that it is art in that he felt some urging to paint it, however, it is not something I would hang on my wall in my house.
3. I think that the cultural mindset is on a pendulum and that modernism is merely a part of the spectrum, just as PM is. Obviously, it is the different philosophies that the pendulum moves through and not necessarily the titles (modernism, post modernism, etc.). Therefore, because the pendulum continually moves, modernism is on it way out and PM is the next philosophy. No one can tell how long the pendulum will travel through a philosophy, but you can be certain that nothing lasts forever. For people to not recognize or accept that fact and think that they can hold onto the past are only fooling themselves.
4. In this day and age of instant gratification, I think that to engage and entice the unbeliever that is out there, you need to be able to relate to them. In my opinion this means showing video clips and tailoring your sermon to what is going on today. Still convey the message but present it in such a way as to connect with your audience. I envision using video clips, songs and pictures to help the audience connect with what I am telling them.
5. I would have to say that in my church, family and local community the prominent art method is music. My church is very much about their music and how it relates or connects with the congregation, based on which service they are attending (traditional/blended/contemporary). In my family my wife is part of the praise team, all three of my kids are in the children's choir and I personally love to sing and listen to music. In our town there is always some kind of concert or program going on that has music. The method that is probably the next prevalent would be theater. My church again likes to put on both adult and children's plays, musicals and dramas. And again my children are involved in those and in our town we actually have a theater where performances are being performed weekly.
6. In my life and what I hope to be, a pastor, the value and emphasis of words is very important. To me if you can effectively and efficiently convey your message then it is just a matter of the other person responding and going from there. I'm not saying that you have to use big words and sound overly important, but I am saying that you need to be able to communicate in such a way that the person you are talking to can understand what you are saying.
Sacrament to me is the act of communion. Growing up we took communion every week, the same way. At my current church we only take communion so many times a year and we usually incorporate feet washing along with it. Rarely do we share in communion in the same way as we did the last time we came together. For me communion symbolizes the sacrifice Christ made for me and it is my way of remembering that. Therefore, I greatly value and believe that communion is important.
The arts, are an expression of our souls and therefore our inner most desires. No matter what format of art you do and no matter how well you do it you are still sharing and giving of yourself. I feel the arts are very important in that if we didn't have them, then we would be no different than a bunch of robots.
7. I define discipleship as the act of making disciples. A disciple is someone who follows a master and believes in his ideals and then spreads them. Since art can be defined as any method of expressing oneself, I would say that art definitely plays a role in discipleship. Its role is to act as common ground, upon which you meet someone else. Once you are on common ground and create a meaningful relationship then you can begin to share and exchange ideas with them. Which in turn allows you to witness to them in order to help them become a follower also.
I feel that I have died to myself. Once I committed to becoming a pastor, I feel that I gave my life over to God. That is not to say that I don't on many occasions try to hurry along or change God's timing and action plan for me, but in the end I always come back to him, humble and bowed, offering up my life yet again.
Can you kill a dead person? That question has multiple answers and also sparks multiple questions. Such as in what sense are they dead? Are they physically dead? If so, then no you can't kill them. Are they spiritually dead? Then, yes you can physically kill them which in turn causes them to live eternally, albeit in hell. Are they emotionally dead? Again, you can physically kill them, but I feel that someone who is emotionally dead is merely going through the motions and is just waiting for their bodies to give up. If someone is emotionally dead I don't think you can kill them because they are already dead.
Thursday, March 8, 2007
Sessions #6 & #7, Dyrness
[In order to catch our collective breath, I am combining some session posts. This term is flying by.]
Visual Faith and the brief history/theology/art interpretation that Dryness provides has many insights into worship/culture/PM missiology in EC ministry. The arts are an expression of worship that proclaims the beauty and glory of the Triune God in creation. Our view of creation/matter/stuff impacts our theology/ecology (care of the good earth)/holistic view of life and ministry.
1) Reflecting on Dryness, how does our view of culture, church, and Christ impact our theology and practice of worship?
2) Reflect on the art presented on pages 110 and 112.
3) Why do think modernism is collapsing? Or do you think that modernity will survive the onslaught of PM? (I work with philosophers who do not like PM and avoid teaching it. They can't argue with a system that has no presuppositions to argue (That actually is a presupposition.).
4) How do you envision and/or practice utilizing the arts in your ministry?
5) What arts are emphasized in your church, family, and local community?
6) Explain the value and emphasis of word, sacrament/ordinance, and the arts in your life and ministry?
7) Reflect on pages 151-154, Does art play a role in discipleship? Have you died to self and allowed your life's work to take on a life of its own? Can you kill a dead person?
Interview prompts that you can adapt:
1) What is your favorite recreational activity, hobby, or craft?
2) What is your favorite Super Bowl commercial? Explain why you like it.
2) Use a picture of Rembrandt's Storm on the Sea (I have one in my office.) or print a copy or use your laptop to display this photo: http://www.allposters.com/-sp/Storm-on-the-Sea-of-Galilee-Posters_i798795_.htm Then ask, what is the story behind this picture? Then read Luke 8:22-25. Now, ask them what does picture mean to you? (I can e-mail a file of the picture if you need it.)
Monday, March 5, 2007
Question time ...
At the risk of being forever labeled as the student who told the teacher he forgot to assign the homework, did I miss the posting of Session 6?
Session 5: Tammie
Hunsberger
I'm not sure that the church as a whole challenges, questions or critiques the culture although certainly the individual within the church and teaching both from the pulpit and in the Sunday school classes may on any given day accomplish any or all of the three. There have been messages and lessons that I can recall off the top of my head that challenge, for example, the cultural notion that it's all about me and getting everything I can for me. There is one Sunday school class, in particular, that makes it a point to discuss contemporary issues from a Christian culture. More often, challenges, questions and critiques even within such teaching settings comes as through discussion between the teacher and the students as assorted topics are brought up because that it what the student is facing in school (and, yes, I am referring primarily to youth in this instance).
Generally, it seems we challenge and critique the culture without asking the questions first. We say this thing or that thing is wrong without asking why it is happening or looking for an underlying cause. When that happens, we really have no basis on which to begin a conversation with someone or to engage the culture because we begin from a place of antagonism rather than understanding.
Hendrick
One verse alone - Acts 2:42 - shows a striking similarity to the model Hendrick describes in a missionary church, but the similarities grow as you begin to take the history of the early church as a whole. For example, in Acts 2:42, we are told that the early believers devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching, a devotion that easily falls under Hendrick's point that the missionary church must provide opportunities for the members to reflect on culture from a Biblical view. Granted, we don't know precisely how the apostles taught, but we have to remember that this was a fledging movement in a fairly turbulent historical period. They undoubtedly had to learn how to reflect on their culture from a Biblical worldview just to survive. And, let's not forget that the early church - especially, perhaps, the church at Jerusalem - grew out of the Jewish tradition which already looked at the culture of the Romans, who occupied their land, from a Biblical viewpoint that ran counter to Roman sensibilities. In addition, we read in Acts 2:42 that the New Testament church devoted itself to prayer. Again, this fits with Hendrick's point that the missionary church prays for and seeks its own transformation.
When we start to look at the New Testament church throughout the rest of Acts and in the letters of Paul, we begin to see how it understood its existence in a cross-cultural situation. Paul's address to the gathering on Mars Hill is a brilliant example of Hendrick's first two points - understanding that the church exists in a cross-cultural situation and entering into a dialogue with its context and culture. We also see the church accepting its marginal position as the early believers are scattered in response to the persecution following the martyrdom of Stephen as the believers took the gospel with them wherever they went.
Junkin
Honestly, I don't think I ever participated in a long-term "f-4" community although there are various times in my life that I can pinpoint as short-term "f-4" communities or (in one case that is in no way a means of trying to score extra points, as will be demonstrated in a few lines) an "f-4" community that comes together on a periodic basis.
First, the short-term communities. Almost every mission trip in which I have participated has been an example of an "f-4" community as we were a small group of people banding together to perform certain tasks that grew out of our faith in Christ and a belief that he has called us to work on behalf of "the least of these." Those projects were infused with faith as there were prayers, devotions and worship services involved in the planning of the trip and on the trip itself as well as in the post-trip report to the "senders;" that is, the people of the church.
Now, the community that meets periodically. That would be the MACD cohort. During our times in the intensive classes, we study, we pray, we eat together, we play card games, we drink a lot of coffee, we talk, we sit in silence and basically do life together for that week.
Roxburgh
I find it interesting that on the traditional and renewal models the world seems to be on the outside looking in almost as if to accentuate what is too often reality (at least as perceived by those outside the church) - that is, that you have to figure out what's what, get your act together and fall in line before coming into the church. The difference, perhaps, is that in the renewal model the world seems to be putting the pressure on the church to change its ways while in the traditional model the church seems to be putting pressure on the world to change so that it may enter the fellowship. The missional model, however, seems to point to the world as a target. As Roxburgh describes this model, it also plays to the strengths of the individuals within the church as those individuals find discover their gifts and their role in bringing the gospel to the world. It also seems to allow the pastor a little leeway. In the first two models, the pastor is either expected to be all things to all people, but the third seems to acknowledge that the pastor, too, is a human with talents in some areas and not so much in other areas. It seems this model also engages the people more and gives them a stake in the mission. If there's anything I have learned working with youth, it is that they become more committed to a project if they have taken ownership of it in some manner by taking on roles of responsibility. For example, the contemporary service at our church, while proposed and started by the youth leaders, has now become the domain of the youth. If the worship team doesn't get it together, there's no music. If the tech crew doesn't get it together, we're all in the dark and no one can hear what's happening. The youth have become so committed to it that they now are often pushing us!
Hunsberger
First of all, I almost cheered on the StairMaster at the gym when I read the sentence on page 344, "We are being committee-ed and council-ed to death in our churches." It really does seem that we spend quite a bit of time talking about things rather than actually getting it done. Even if it is not on an official committee, there is usually no shortage of people willing to offer suggestions of what ought to be done and what should be done. Sometimes they follow up on these things and sometimes they just remain as ideas floating on the wind somewhere. The idea of moving from program to embodiment is also one that struck a chord with me as I see every week that the youth (especially as they get older) are less concerned with flashy programs and more concerned with the way we as leaders are modeling the gospel and learning the ways they, too, can be models to their peers. It also seems to me that the shift to laity-oriented relieves the pastor of the burden to do and to be everything. There are, however, people in the church who, for example, expect the pastor - not an elder, not an associate - to visit them while they were in the hospital or shut-in.
Dietterich
The church is not defined by the walls of the building in which it holds its meeting, but by its shared vision of bringing to the world a taste of what is to come when Christ returns and restores the earth. It's a community that opens not just its doors but its hearts to the broken, hurting and imperfect people of the world to bring them into an authentic community that gains strength from each other as it lives and grows in the freedom and knowledge of Christ. The people of the church individually and collectively recognize God as creator and provider of all things, leading to worship as it celebrates the redemptive work of God through Christ. This community also recognizes the uniqueness of each individual as one of God's creations.
I'm not sure that the church as a whole challenges, questions or critiques the culture although certainly the individual within the church and teaching both from the pulpit and in the Sunday school classes may on any given day accomplish any or all of the three. There have been messages and lessons that I can recall off the top of my head that challenge, for example, the cultural notion that it's all about me and getting everything I can for me. There is one Sunday school class, in particular, that makes it a point to discuss contemporary issues from a Christian culture. More often, challenges, questions and critiques even within such teaching settings comes as through discussion between the teacher and the students as assorted topics are brought up because that it what the student is facing in school (and, yes, I am referring primarily to youth in this instance).
Generally, it seems we challenge and critique the culture without asking the questions first. We say this thing or that thing is wrong without asking why it is happening or looking for an underlying cause. When that happens, we really have no basis on which to begin a conversation with someone or to engage the culture because we begin from a place of antagonism rather than understanding.
Hendrick
One verse alone - Acts 2:42 - shows a striking similarity to the model Hendrick describes in a missionary church, but the similarities grow as you begin to take the history of the early church as a whole. For example, in Acts 2:42, we are told that the early believers devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching, a devotion that easily falls under Hendrick's point that the missionary church must provide opportunities for the members to reflect on culture from a Biblical view. Granted, we don't know precisely how the apostles taught, but we have to remember that this was a fledging movement in a fairly turbulent historical period. They undoubtedly had to learn how to reflect on their culture from a Biblical worldview just to survive. And, let's not forget that the early church - especially, perhaps, the church at Jerusalem - grew out of the Jewish tradition which already looked at the culture of the Romans, who occupied their land, from a Biblical viewpoint that ran counter to Roman sensibilities. In addition, we read in Acts 2:42 that the New Testament church devoted itself to prayer. Again, this fits with Hendrick's point that the missionary church prays for and seeks its own transformation.
When we start to look at the New Testament church throughout the rest of Acts and in the letters of Paul, we begin to see how it understood its existence in a cross-cultural situation. Paul's address to the gathering on Mars Hill is a brilliant example of Hendrick's first two points - understanding that the church exists in a cross-cultural situation and entering into a dialogue with its context and culture. We also see the church accepting its marginal position as the early believers are scattered in response to the persecution following the martyrdom of Stephen as the believers took the gospel with them wherever they went.
Junkin
Honestly, I don't think I ever participated in a long-term "f-4" community although there are various times in my life that I can pinpoint as short-term "f-4" communities or (in one case that is in no way a means of trying to score extra points, as will be demonstrated in a few lines) an "f-4" community that comes together on a periodic basis.
First, the short-term communities. Almost every mission trip in which I have participated has been an example of an "f-4" community as we were a small group of people banding together to perform certain tasks that grew out of our faith in Christ and a belief that he has called us to work on behalf of "the least of these." Those projects were infused with faith as there were prayers, devotions and worship services involved in the planning of the trip and on the trip itself as well as in the post-trip report to the "senders;" that is, the people of the church.
Now, the community that meets periodically. That would be the MACD cohort. During our times in the intensive classes, we study, we pray, we eat together, we play card games, we drink a lot of coffee, we talk, we sit in silence and basically do life together for that week.
Roxburgh
I find it interesting that on the traditional and renewal models the world seems to be on the outside looking in almost as if to accentuate what is too often reality (at least as perceived by those outside the church) - that is, that you have to figure out what's what, get your act together and fall in line before coming into the church. The difference, perhaps, is that in the renewal model the world seems to be putting the pressure on the church to change its ways while in the traditional model the church seems to be putting pressure on the world to change so that it may enter the fellowship. The missional model, however, seems to point to the world as a target. As Roxburgh describes this model, it also plays to the strengths of the individuals within the church as those individuals find discover their gifts and their role in bringing the gospel to the world. It also seems to allow the pastor a little leeway. In the first two models, the pastor is either expected to be all things to all people, but the third seems to acknowledge that the pastor, too, is a human with talents in some areas and not so much in other areas. It seems this model also engages the people more and gives them a stake in the mission. If there's anything I have learned working with youth, it is that they become more committed to a project if they have taken ownership of it in some manner by taking on roles of responsibility. For example, the contemporary service at our church, while proposed and started by the youth leaders, has now become the domain of the youth. If the worship team doesn't get it together, there's no music. If the tech crew doesn't get it together, we're all in the dark and no one can hear what's happening. The youth have become so committed to it that they now are often pushing us!
Hunsberger
First of all, I almost cheered on the StairMaster at the gym when I read the sentence on page 344, "We are being committee-ed and council-ed to death in our churches." It really does seem that we spend quite a bit of time talking about things rather than actually getting it done. Even if it is not on an official committee, there is usually no shortage of people willing to offer suggestions of what ought to be done and what should be done. Sometimes they follow up on these things and sometimes they just remain as ideas floating on the wind somewhere. The idea of moving from program to embodiment is also one that struck a chord with me as I see every week that the youth (especially as they get older) are less concerned with flashy programs and more concerned with the way we as leaders are modeling the gospel and learning the ways they, too, can be models to their peers. It also seems to me that the shift to laity-oriented relieves the pastor of the burden to do and to be everything. There are, however, people in the church who, for example, expect the pastor - not an elder, not an associate - to visit them while they were in the hospital or shut-in.
Dietterich
The church is not defined by the walls of the building in which it holds its meeting, but by its shared vision of bringing to the world a taste of what is to come when Christ returns and restores the earth. It's a community that opens not just its doors but its hearts to the broken, hurting and imperfect people of the world to bring them into an authentic community that gains strength from each other as it lives and grows in the freedom and knowledge of Christ. The people of the church individually and collectively recognize God as creator and provider of all things, leading to worship as it celebrates the redemptive work of God through Christ. This community also recognizes the uniqueness of each individual as one of God's creations.
Thursday, March 1, 2007
Session #5: Jon
1. Hunsberger.
I guess I would not ask how our church accomplishes this task, but IF it does. From a fairly critical perspective I think this is a fundamental challenge facing our congregation. Although there is ample criticism of some of the more extreme examples of godlessness in our culture (sexuality, drug and alcohol abuse, etc.) our focus can often be on living holier lives than these extreme examples. As a result of comparing ourselves to the worst in society, it seems that there is a reluctance to admit sin, but rather rationalize it. “At least we’re not as bad as those people.” I believe this reluctance to admit sin eliminates our need for the gospel, or at least changes it. Instead of worshipping God and his holiness and being properly convicted of our sins and subsequently driven to our knees in repentance, we just try not to be as bad as THOSE people. Unfortunately, this transforms the ethos of the church from sinners at the foot of the cross (grasped by the gospel), to a group of people with similar upbringings and religious backgrounds that are seeking a happy, comfortable medium where they are just trying to be better than most of those godless crazies out there. I think many times we can’t criticize our own culture because that would mean criticizing and questioning ourselves and our loved ones and our skin isn’t thick enough to do it. We are too scared to really look in the mirror or allow the truth of the gospel message to engage us. We avoid. All the time we avoid.
2. Hendrick
The first century church needed to distinguish itself from Judaism. One of the ways this was made easy is that Judaism in the first century was more easily defined. There were hundreds of rules that defined behavior and in some sense distinguished Judaism from culture. Early Christianity needed to work hard to redefine itself, and it did so by breaking away from (behaviorally) many of the clearly defined traditions of Judaism. The NA church has a similar task, but I believe it is more difficult because the church in NA is not as clearly defined in our culture. Under the umbrella of the Church in NA there are thousands of differences. As a result we cannot just redefine ourselves as compared to whomever, but must define ourselves in contrast to our constantly changing culture. I like the six points that Hendricks brings up and agree that the most important thing is to recognize the truth of who the church is in the eyes of our culture. Points #1 and #5 revolve around a recognition of the present reality of the church. I think this was easy for the NT missional model because in some ways it was starting from scratch. In some ways it wasn’t. We can see throughout the book of Galatians the discussion Paul has trying to get his audience to recognize that they don’t need to be both Jews and Christ followers. In points #2 and #3 there is an introduction of a process or activity in which the truth of the reality of the church in NA might be discovered if not understood already. I think this was a necessary part of the NT missional church because it recognized its situation (#1, and #5) already. In the NA church I think there would be some ah-ha moments for people in engaging in #2 and #3. Finally, I see #4 and #6 as the mission/purpose statement that was the backbone of the NT church, and could be ours as well.
3. Junkin
The closest I have been to this is the community I had as a student in College living in the dorms, and then also as a Resident Director (person in charge of the dorm). These experiences were both at Christian liberal arts colleges, and because the students had quite a bit in common before coming, it made the transition to a godly community possible. There was also the healthy tradition of strong community and relationships coming into the college dorm experience as well as the defined structure of the college life. Essentially the university administration had created an atmosphere that made it easier to develop and deepen Christian community. I think one of the strongest elements that led to the successful development of genuine Christian community was the understanding that people had BEFORE committing of college. Part of this is the understanding and expectation of transition and transformation. These students and their parents planned for this transition, were spending a lot of money, and expecting to be changed. It was an entire life transition and transformation.
The second element was the quantity of time spent with one another. Many of these guys ate every meal, studied, slept, exercised, hung out, essentially did everything with one another for months at a time. In addition, they traveled together, met each others families, worshipped together, prayed for each other, and discussed everything under the sun. There is no substitution for time spent in the development and deepening of community. I believe to this day it is the closest I have ever been to genuine Christian community.
4. Roxburgh
I love these models, but I can see how it might prove difficult to get a congregation to agree with it. There is a battle against the “that’s what we pay you to do” mentality that can be prevalent in today’s churches. I can see in our church how there is a tension between people that support the first or the second model and see those as the only two options. I like the third the most, but can also see how some Pastors might not like this model because it does give up some control of the execution of the church programs. For the most part I think it comes down to communication of the structure and making sure the properly gifted people are in the right places. It is difficult though because the Pastor is getting paid and there must be something (for the sake of the congregation) that separates him from the volunteer staff. The community will determine what that is that should separate their pastor and that is usually how the Pastor’s job description is formed. Unfortunately, sometimes that is just a list of what no one else wants to do, or it can be a select list of things the congregation defines as “real ministry”. Looks great on paper, but it would prove to be a tough sell for some congregations.
5. Hunsberger
Okay, let’s get this straight, I am serving in a church that is more like a vendor of religious services. It is missional, but mostly it supports other people to be missional without actually being very missional itself. I am racking my brain to think of how I might even begin a conversation about this subject with our Senior Pastor, much less our church leadership. I am also thinking of how to discern the differences between people’s attitudes towards church being either missional or just vendor of religious services. In the first shift I can see it is completely up to the participant to determine whether a program or activity is one or the other. I believe we address the importance of the application to our teachings, etc., but whether people actually do apply these things is ultimately up to them. I like the shift from committee to team, but wonder how people would feel about being less informed and having less control/input in how things are done. Sadly enough, I think some people might miss the opportunity to be the center of attention and have a voice amongst a group of people. I’m not sure if people would be able to give that up for the sake of others’ salvation. I know it sounds awful, but for some it might be hard to break because their identity is so entangled in it. The third one looks at a Pastor as a catalyst within a congregation to spur them on. I can see how this could be very exhausting, especially if that is not really why the congregation the pastor. Next, how necessary is a pastor to motivate and inspire in a church that desires to hire a pastor that will motivate and inspire them. Aren’t they well on their way already. I feel like the shift from recruitment to missions is kind of semantics. One is going out, and the other is bringing in, but isn’t that just because in mission going out is the first step to bring in? Besides “giving the gospel away”, isn’t our best hope of that an exposure to genuine Christian community lived out. That isn’t something that can just be handed out on the street corner. It really must be a blend of both pursuit, as well as welcome and invitation. The last one is also informed by a leader’s inspiration and motivation. Yes an entrepreneur might even be more focused upon reaching out to new people (gaining market share/being missional), than the missionary leader who is one who “forms community”. That sounds like quite a bit of work with the insiders and not outreach. I think this reading has gotten a bit muddled in my brain.
I guess I would not ask how our church accomplishes this task, but IF it does. From a fairly critical perspective I think this is a fundamental challenge facing our congregation. Although there is ample criticism of some of the more extreme examples of godlessness in our culture (sexuality, drug and alcohol abuse, etc.) our focus can often be on living holier lives than these extreme examples. As a result of comparing ourselves to the worst in society, it seems that there is a reluctance to admit sin, but rather rationalize it. “At least we’re not as bad as those people.” I believe this reluctance to admit sin eliminates our need for the gospel, or at least changes it. Instead of worshipping God and his holiness and being properly convicted of our sins and subsequently driven to our knees in repentance, we just try not to be as bad as THOSE people. Unfortunately, this transforms the ethos of the church from sinners at the foot of the cross (grasped by the gospel), to a group of people with similar upbringings and religious backgrounds that are seeking a happy, comfortable medium where they are just trying to be better than most of those godless crazies out there. I think many times we can’t criticize our own culture because that would mean criticizing and questioning ourselves and our loved ones and our skin isn’t thick enough to do it. We are too scared to really look in the mirror or allow the truth of the gospel message to engage us. We avoid. All the time we avoid.
2. Hendrick
The first century church needed to distinguish itself from Judaism. One of the ways this was made easy is that Judaism in the first century was more easily defined. There were hundreds of rules that defined behavior and in some sense distinguished Judaism from culture. Early Christianity needed to work hard to redefine itself, and it did so by breaking away from (behaviorally) many of the clearly defined traditions of Judaism. The NA church has a similar task, but I believe it is more difficult because the church in NA is not as clearly defined in our culture. Under the umbrella of the Church in NA there are thousands of differences. As a result we cannot just redefine ourselves as compared to whomever, but must define ourselves in contrast to our constantly changing culture. I like the six points that Hendricks brings up and agree that the most important thing is to recognize the truth of who the church is in the eyes of our culture. Points #1 and #5 revolve around a recognition of the present reality of the church. I think this was easy for the NT missional model because in some ways it was starting from scratch. In some ways it wasn’t. We can see throughout the book of Galatians the discussion Paul has trying to get his audience to recognize that they don’t need to be both Jews and Christ followers. In points #2 and #3 there is an introduction of a process or activity in which the truth of the reality of the church in NA might be discovered if not understood already. I think this was a necessary part of the NT missional church because it recognized its situation (#1, and #5) already. In the NA church I think there would be some ah-ha moments for people in engaging in #2 and #3. Finally, I see #4 and #6 as the mission/purpose statement that was the backbone of the NT church, and could be ours as well.
3. Junkin
The closest I have been to this is the community I had as a student in College living in the dorms, and then also as a Resident Director (person in charge of the dorm). These experiences were both at Christian liberal arts colleges, and because the students had quite a bit in common before coming, it made the transition to a godly community possible. There was also the healthy tradition of strong community and relationships coming into the college dorm experience as well as the defined structure of the college life. Essentially the university administration had created an atmosphere that made it easier to develop and deepen Christian community. I think one of the strongest elements that led to the successful development of genuine Christian community was the understanding that people had BEFORE committing of college. Part of this is the understanding and expectation of transition and transformation. These students and their parents planned for this transition, were spending a lot of money, and expecting to be changed. It was an entire life transition and transformation.
The second element was the quantity of time spent with one another. Many of these guys ate every meal, studied, slept, exercised, hung out, essentially did everything with one another for months at a time. In addition, they traveled together, met each others families, worshipped together, prayed for each other, and discussed everything under the sun. There is no substitution for time spent in the development and deepening of community. I believe to this day it is the closest I have ever been to genuine Christian community.
4. Roxburgh
I love these models, but I can see how it might prove difficult to get a congregation to agree with it. There is a battle against the “that’s what we pay you to do” mentality that can be prevalent in today’s churches. I can see in our church how there is a tension between people that support the first or the second model and see those as the only two options. I like the third the most, but can also see how some Pastors might not like this model because it does give up some control of the execution of the church programs. For the most part I think it comes down to communication of the structure and making sure the properly gifted people are in the right places. It is difficult though because the Pastor is getting paid and there must be something (for the sake of the congregation) that separates him from the volunteer staff. The community will determine what that is that should separate their pastor and that is usually how the Pastor’s job description is formed. Unfortunately, sometimes that is just a list of what no one else wants to do, or it can be a select list of things the congregation defines as “real ministry”. Looks great on paper, but it would prove to be a tough sell for some congregations.
5. Hunsberger
Okay, let’s get this straight, I am serving in a church that is more like a vendor of religious services. It is missional, but mostly it supports other people to be missional without actually being very missional itself. I am racking my brain to think of how I might even begin a conversation about this subject with our Senior Pastor, much less our church leadership. I am also thinking of how to discern the differences between people’s attitudes towards church being either missional or just vendor of religious services. In the first shift I can see it is completely up to the participant to determine whether a program or activity is one or the other. I believe we address the importance of the application to our teachings, etc., but whether people actually do apply these things is ultimately up to them. I like the shift from committee to team, but wonder how people would feel about being less informed and having less control/input in how things are done. Sadly enough, I think some people might miss the opportunity to be the center of attention and have a voice amongst a group of people. I’m not sure if people would be able to give that up for the sake of others’ salvation. I know it sounds awful, but for some it might be hard to break because their identity is so entangled in it. The third one looks at a Pastor as a catalyst within a congregation to spur them on. I can see how this could be very exhausting, especially if that is not really why the congregation the pastor. Next, how necessary is a pastor to motivate and inspire in a church that desires to hire a pastor that will motivate and inspire them. Aren’t they well on their way already. I feel like the shift from recruitment to missions is kind of semantics. One is going out, and the other is bringing in, but isn’t that just because in mission going out is the first step to bring in? Besides “giving the gospel away”, isn’t our best hope of that an exposure to genuine Christian community lived out. That isn’t something that can just be handed out on the street corner. It really must be a blend of both pursuit, as well as welcome and invitation. The last one is also informed by a leader’s inspiration and motivation. Yes an entrepreneur might even be more focused upon reaching out to new people (gaining market share/being missional), than the missionary leader who is one who “forms community”. That sounds like quite a bit of work with the insiders and not outreach. I think this reading has gotten a bit muddled in my brain.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
