Apology to Roland

Roland, 

I am sorry if I have made you feel that I dismiss your insight out of hand or because it's from you as the source.  I do not and never wanted you to feel that way.  I respect your views and thoughts on these issues.  Sorry for anytime when I've let my passion be negatively addressed to you, especially when you have not deserved it.  I have never wanted that. 

I need to learn how to disagree more agreeably.  Sorry that you have been one of those people I learn on.  Yes, I disagree with the missional church.  I've made that painfully obvious.  I agree with some of the questions they are asking and am trying to learn from them.  The conclusions they come to, I do not like or find solidly biblical.  I feel this movement is outside of evangelicalism and that is water I'm familiar in discussing in.  

I will thrive to be more of a servant, learner and disagree less verbally.  Sorry for offending you if I have done so.  

Gospel and Canon

I was thinking in light of a couple of statements and had a question.  

1.  You've said that the church under Christendom basically has got it wrong.  The Missional Leader says it's now obsolete, not wrong.  In class you said that the church has been missing the boat for 17 centuries.  (if I phrased that too strongly sorry I'm really trying to repeat what you said).  

2.  The Missional movement is about the proclamation of the "Kingdom of God" or the "Reign of God."  This is definitely a focus of Jesus' teachings.  In studying for another class we brought up the point that the focus of Paul's teaching is  clearly the gospel.  

I've got two questions:  

1.  What focus is there on the gospel or more specifically in evangelical language, "asking Jesus in your heart?" Last class time you said the Missional Movement was broader than the scope of evangelicalism.    So my guess is that you'll say this focus is among some but not all.  With mainline denominational churches it's less about the individual and more about God's calling on the community.  With some reformed thought, it's not individual election but communal election.  With Lutherans, and many others, it's about being a part of the community of believers.  So the focus is on the church community and not the individual.  

 

SO my question is where does the gospel fit into the Missional Movement, specifically in regards to a personal relationship with Jesus?  

2.  If the church has been wrong for 17 centuries, what about the canon?  The canon was put together post-Constantine.  Is it merely a product of Christendom?  I don't know.  If you toss out the Christendom, do you toss out everything?  Along with this, what doctrinal creeds are widely accepted in the Missional Movement, the apostles Creed, etc.?  I'm not accusing y'all of not accepting the canon but how do you take the authority of scripture in 66 books and be so adamant on the error of the church under this time frame being so bad.  

SO what is the Missional Movements acceptance of the canon, creeds and any doctrinal assertions post 311AD?  

An Additional Thought on Anarchy

As I was further thinking about your post Mike, you brought up a point about how people in the church can be, making life very difficult for their pastors. But I wonder if people act or react in terms of power in the church, not too generalize too much here, because leadership has acted in "power" to shape and control the ministry of the church. Could it not be people, in order to protect themselves or their interests, react in power as well -- what often happens, people have more power than their pastor or leaders.

I see this happening over and over again in many places. But what if we as pastors begin to minister according to a different paradigm - that refuses to resort to power, but seeks out not merely the interests of others (Php. 2), but that which the Spirit of God desires to do in each life. It may take some time, involve some pain, require some turning of the other cheek -- but in the end, what kind of Christians do we desire for them to become -- doing God's work in the midst of power issues, or in the dunamis of the Spirit?

I am attaching a somewhat lengthy quotation from Brian McLaren from his book, The Secret Message of Jesus, about the way of the kingdom in contrast to the way of the world.

"The story is familiar: the religious and political-military powers collaborate and negotiate and reach an elegant final solution. Jesus will be crucified as a rebel. He will be nailed to a Roman cross--the visible symbol of the power of the Roman principality and power, the instrument of torture and execution that is the end of all who stand up against Rome.

They crush him and his movement. And it appears that Jesus has failed.

This is the scandal of the message of Jesus. The kingdom of God does fail. It is weak. It is crushed. When its message of love, peace, justice, and truth meets the principalities and powers of the government and religion armed with spears and swords and crosses, they unleash their hate, force, manipulation, and propaganda. Like those defenseless students standing before the tanks and machine guns in Tienanmen Square, the resistance movement known as the kingdom of God is crushed.

But what is the alternative? We really must consider the question. Could the kingdom come with bigger weapons, sharper swords, more clever political organizing? Could the kingdom of God be a matter of what is often called redemptive violence? Or would that methodology corrupt the kingdom of God so it would stop being 'of God' at all and instead become just another earthly (and perhaps in some sense demonic) principality or power? Perhaps the kingdom could come with flawless, relentless, irresistible logic--a juggernaut of steamroller counterargument to flatten every objection. Or would that mental conquest be as dominating as military conquest, reducing the kingdom of God to a kingdom of coercive stridency?

What if the only way for the kingdom of God to come in its true form -- as a kingdom 'not of this world' -- is through weakness and vulnerability, sacrifice and love? What if it can conquer only by being conquered? What if being conquered is absolutely necessary to expose the brutal violence and dark oppression of these principalities and powers, these human ideologies and counterkingdoms -- so they, having been exposed, can be seen for what they are and freely rejected, making room for the new and better kingdom? What if the kingdom of God must in these ways fail in order to succeed?" (McLaren, The Secret Message of Jesus, 68-70)

Question: What if we had a similar attitude in enacting the way we lead in the church? -- Not leading in power, but leading in the way of the Spirit?

Roland

A Response to Mike's Concern about Anarchy

Anarchy may seem be one risk of trying to be a community that gives attention to what God is doing and then discerning its way to participate. But you demonstrate how difficult it is for us to get away from the control question -- it all depends on who we see as being in control.

If we are a community submitted to God (even the non-Christians within the community realize that God has something to do with this), then it becomes a matter of always directing people to have ears to hear God and eyes to see God. Our being together as a community is meant to bring about maturation in the community - not just to do tasks, but to demonstrate unity as we grow into the fullness of Christ Jesus.

The other day someone mentioned that in my approach to ministry I blend comfort with challenge. Maybe it has something to do with that. I have come to realize I do not have to make the ministry happen -- God is managing that quite well. What we are called to in the church as pastors is to keep reminding people about God, God's present activity in the world, how God is calling us, how God is shaping us, how the Spirit is leading us, how we are being formed to continue in the ministry of Christ, etc.

It's amazing as people finally have an "aha" moment, a different kind of conversion than merely our deciding for Jesus, but that my life is hidden in Christ, and my purpose is to live for God in this world -- that marvellous things begin to happen.

Though it may take some time, patient walking alongside with others, even the problem folks, but pastors are called to be among a community of people reminding them to stay focused on God, to hear God and to see what God is up to.
To me that is the essence of fostering missional ministry.

Roland

The issues I see

Talking about church and the work of Christians gets me excited. This journey we are going through is a good one.

Having processed and chewed a bit more on the topics a couple of thought rise to the center for me.
1. Truth. The truth of the gospel and God's Word change lives.
2. Influence. Whatever channel you have to influence people through it should look like Jesus. Servantship, leadership or whatever we should look like Jesus in our interactions and thoughts.
3. Personality and giftedness. The strengths that God has given you will show up in how you lead, and communicate will effect your structure and model of church.

On the side of truth, I see absolutes. If God is who He is (just, wise, never changing, consistent, the same yesterday, t0oday and forever, our strong tower, the way, the truth and the life) it makes sense the world he would create would be just, fulled with wisdom, and truth. I think truth is that which best reflects reality. If "that which best reflects reality" is created by God and has it's foundation in God. God never changes, so it would follow that truth never changes. However, our perspective on that reality, needs to be rooted in scripture and confirmed by other Christians in our community and taken with humility.

The missional movement and emergent and all of these "new postmodern" movement from my understanding don't agree with what I just said. Truth is not absolute but forming collective realities is the focus. The issue is does absolute truth exist? That changes everything if it does.

I think the "traditional" church, which has existed on the foundation of centuries of good and not so good ideas, needs to be seen not as a straw man or through our past bad experiences. The perspectives of George Barna and Eugene Peterson however informed or influential they are, aren't the necessarily the norm. And they are not the norm of the churches I know in town or that I've seen or been at.

Often from a distant these statements of Hybels and the church growth movement people get narrowed down into two or three points. Yes, Bill Hybels has some not so accurate points. To me business minded and consumer driven ideas have been bi-products of his church. But however Willow Creek has down more than just the those two ideas. Their focus is to, like Rick Warren, be more than just fellowship and discipleship and include worship, service AND yes, evangelism.

That concept of "seeker sensitive" megachurch church is not from what I can tell the norm for evangelical churches. Afterall, the average size of church in America is still under 100.

All that to say, I'm not a big missional guy so far. I do however think the next generation of church leaders needs to know the post-modern mindset of people, they need to be less guided by one man's perspective on where church go and focus AND they needs to get more involved righting the wrongs of social issues in our own communities as well as overseas.

But balance needs to be seen here. Don't throw out the focus on good leadership because we need to focus on serving. Can't we do both?

Brief Dialogue between Mike and Roland

I have been doing a lot of thinking about the leadership question. Maybe some people are gifted to lead missionally, and some are gifted to lead traditionally, and some may be gifted to lead in another way. If I am a traditional leader, maybe I should lead traditionally. If I am a missional leader, then I should lead missionally. Some people are no type of leader. The key is that the leader lead with the style God has given him, and the church be lead in a style of the guy God puts in charge.

For me, to lead traditionally doesn't work. But to lead servant-like does.

Mike

Good insights Mike. I need to think about this some more. It would also seem besides leading in according to one's character, one needs to take into account the kind of people one leads -- if one leads traditionally but people do not respond or feel controlled and as a result chafe under that leadership, the way one leads needs to be shifted to enable people to grow, to be productive (in terms of business standards, etc). I guess, I sense that most people do not respond well over the long haul to traditional forms of leadership - being servants with the gift of leading enables people to sense that they are a vital part of the process.

Roland

Welcome

Well here is our class blog for PT 6000 Leadership in Missional Perspective (SP 08 Indy class).

Here we can raise questions, make comments, post ideas, etc. of the learnings and discussions that arise out of our class time and reading, etc.

I hope that this can become an added learning experience during the inbetween times when we do not meet together.

I am not sure if we share one password or each of us has our own password to be able to post on the blog (I think it is the latter), but let me know. Otherwise, we'll have to set this up differently with a password we can all share.

Roland