TheBolgBlog

Evangelicalism: An Americanized Christianity -- Book Review

2008-06-09T09:21:05-07:00

Here is a book review I recently completed...Some of the details: Evangelicalism: An Americanized Christianity. By Richard Kyle. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books, 2006. Pp. xiv, 337. $34.95.

Richard Kyle is professor of history and religion at Tabor College in Hillsboro, Kansas. He received theological training at both Baptist and Presbyterian divinity schools. His church membership has been a part of the Mennonite Brethren.

Kyle writes a brief history of popular evangelicalism in the United States, giving two chapters to 18th and 19th century evangelicalism. His main focus, however, is Twentieth-century evangelicalism, writing two chapters dealing with the first half of the century, and three chapters on the second half.

Kyle’s evaluation of popular American evangelicalism is, with rare exception, entirely negative. “There is only a fine line between being relevant to its surrounding culture and being absorbed by that culture. American evangelicalism has stepped over this line (2).” Much of Kyle’s critique regards the accommodation of evangelical faith to popular culture. He laments the loss of expository sermons, four-part harmony choirs, the organ, and the pastor as shepherd. He decries the use of guitars and drums, personal stories on relevant topics, and big screen monitors in worship. He praises high culture, with its focus on objectivity, the timeless, and the transcendent, and he decries popular culture as trivial, new, and spectacular.

Any missiologist will benefit from Kyle’s close look at the relation between church and culture in America. However, Kyle sees the relation of church and culture as a zero-sum game – more of one equals less of another – they are always at odds. From Andrew Walls, we know that one cannot have too much of either gospel or culture – just too little. Rather than abandon popular culture and embrace high culture as Kyle prefers, what American evangelicalism needs is more gospel.

Fuller Seminary and Emerging Churches

2008-06-01T16:37:22-07:00

This last spring, I had the opportunity to speak at the Association of Theological Schools “SPAN” conference for administrators. They asked me to speak about the changes in the American/British church scene that I wrote about in the book “Emerging Churches”, a book I co-wrote with Fuller professor Eddie Gibbs.

My talk addressed the need for seminaries to be transformed if they are to continue to serve the needs of churches in the Twenty-first century. As I spoke, I realized that Fuller has already made many of these changes and is well suited to partner with emerging churches in the future.

For me, the conversation on the emerging church and Fuller started in a little conference room located in Glasser Hall, one of the older converted homes on the Fuller campus, back in thee mid-nineties. About five to ten of us would have a “brown-bag” lunch weekly. Some were Masters students, such as myself, and Barry Taylor, some were doctoral students, and some were professors: Wilbert Shenk and Eddie Gibbs. The conversation always strayed to conversations about how the church must adapt in the coming few years.

Wilbert Shenk, the instigator of the meeting, suggested the subversive idea, brought over from England and Lesslie Newbigin in the early nineties, that the West functioned as a mission field: that the church ought to see its surrounding cultures in the same way as good missionaries do. Eddie Gibbs brought his deep understanding of everyday church life to the meetings; Eddie had recently penned “In Name Only”, the classic text on nominality, and was working on a subsequent book, “Churchnext”.

In the 1990s, there were very few examples of churches that were communicating within the perspectives and practices of new urban cultures. More typically at that time, the strategy consisted of making the church service relevant to outsiders: play the right music and light the right candles and they will come. However, in our collective experience at our lunch in Glasser Hall, the trendy service didn’t solve the problem. Instead it revealed deeper problems in the church.

At the same time that many church leaders were asking themselves if the problem in the Western church was simply a generational one, we at Fuller, in our little room in Glasser Hall, were asking the same questions. Perhaps, instead of a generational shift in the church, we were experiencing a cultural shift? In 1998, the so-called ‘Gen-X’ churches began a move to ‘postmodern’ understandings of church, rather than generational. However, the cultural shift was only the beginning. After a couple of years, towards the year 2000, we realized that culture language only got the church so far, that postmodern culture needed a positive response from within that culture. We realized, through the help of many scholars of the day, that it was the kingdom of God, or in mission terms, the missio Dei, that was the missing ingredient in church life. At the same time, emerging churches were asking themselves the same questions.

In the year 2000, the emerging movement got its start. Characterized by a renewed focus on the life of Christ, emerging churches clung to the gospels as a pattern for church life within urban cultures. In 2004, we at Fuller hosted the first think-tank for emerging leaders to discuss the challenges of working with entirely new forms of church, churches dedicated to living out the Sermon on the Mount in new contexts.
Overcoming the sacred/secular split has been a huge concern for emerging churches. They desire to see the world become a spiritual place through their activities in it. Conversely, they desire their worship to become more ‘worldly’ – more connected to everyday cultural practices, shedding God’s light on them.

We at Fuller were wonderfully situated to contribute to the cultural question. In a bold move, Fuller hired Donald McGavran in 1965 to found the School of World Mission, the first of its kind. The school’s first hired professor was an anthropologist, Alan Tippett. However, it wasn’t just the School of World Mission that understood culture to be paramount, other spheres of Fuller addressed cultural issues as well.

Our current president, Richard J. Mouw, serves as an ambassador to the culture, speaking about redeeming all levels of culture – even the local Burger King. In addition, the Brehm Center, through a focus on music, film, TV, and the arts, takes full advantage of living adjacent to LA/Hollywood. Brehm runs the gamut from fine arts to popular culture, and represents the kind of holistic approach to culture advocated by the emerging church.

Emerging churches place a high value on community. The community precedes church – no community, no church. At Fuller, I see some of these high levels of connection in our cohort groups and online programs. In these endeavors, students meet at least weekly with their peers, sharing and praying together. In our online program, that intensity deepens as they form a learning community that builds on the spiritual community. The pedagogy shifts as the peers teach each other, all the while being mentored by the professor. When Fuller seizes the moment to create mini-learning/spiritual communities, it embodies the type of ministry that the emerging church craves, thus resembling a neo-monastic model of ministry.

Emerging Churches place a great emphasis on hospitality. They create space for the other, be it at home, a coffee place, or school. They want to hear the thoughts and opinions of those different from them. They pursue those of other faiths and traditions – simply to listen and learn. Some entire emerging churches have been trained by monasteries to learn how to create space for the other.

When I heard of this practice, I immediately thought of the kind of evangelicalism we practice at Fuller. Rather than focus on our differences with others, thus objectifying and distancing them, Fuller walks with other traditions, whether that be Mormons, Jews, or Muslims. We focus on similarities, discussing our common histories and perspectives. We establish relationship with others. At that point, when the other has become a friend, we discuss our very real differences. But it is done in love, with a friend, rather than with a caricature of someone we don’t really know.

The emerging church values holism in regard to social justice and evangelism. They weave together words and works in such a way that one does not exist without the other. One is simply the spoken version of the physical reality. At Fuller, we practice such a holistic faith. Both social justice and the proclamation of the word are explored and discussed in our classes. We do not create a hierarchy; we practice a holistic evangelism, where word and works are united.

Emerging churches facilitate high levels of participation and creativity for their members. In a youtube culture, identity is formed through what we create. For something to transform us, we need to physically participate in its creation. At Fuller, I think of our internship programs and practica. These give students the opportunities to practice the cognitive and affective changes they experienced in class. Flexible programs allow students to participate in their course design at a deep level as well. Some courses experiment with service learning options, giving students the opportunity to participate in transformation in really practical ways.

Emerging churches practice the priesthood of all believers. They question the elevation of some gifts over others. They desire to see different leaders minister at different levels. Fuller, through its many different degree programs, gives opportunity for multiple avenues to training, not necessarily tracks focused on future pastors. This makes sense as more communities move away from the one-person-per church-seminary-trained model. With its breadth of programs, Fuller serves this constituency well.

Emerging churches practice historic forms of spirituality. In addition to practicing the Eucharist weekly, they often pray the hours and participate in the Christian calendar. Fuller is in a good place in regard to practicing the tradition -- because of its mainline roots, Fuller’s brand of evangelicalism is rooted in historic practices. These traditions are reinvigorated each year as Fuller practices the Christian calendar.

As I wrapped up my discussion on the emerging church at the ATS seminar, I became so grateful to be teaching at Fuller. I work within a community that serves the church today – and tomorrow.

I'm still here...

2007-08-13T00:09:22-07:00

Hi -- just a note to say I'm still alive! Spring quarter finished with some great students doing some wonderfully creative church plant projects. Ian Mobsby was his amazing self in his talk at Fuller in June. I taught an 80 hour two-week intensive on cultural analysis in late June for some really engaged D. Miss. students. After all this I crashed!! I've spent some time away with the family in July. Very much needed. I'm returning tomorrow to Fuller to teach a two-week intensive and will slowly be easing my way back into all things school. I haven't taught the class before (don't tell my students!) but inherited it from my respected friend and (former) colleague, Eddie Gibbs.

I'll try not to be too much of a stranger the rest of the summer...

Ian Mobsby to Speak at Fuller

2007-06-13T23:31:10-07:00

I'm really excited about this. Ian Mobsby is one of the most intelligent and articulate spokespersons on the Emerging Church. Hailing from London, he has been at the forefront of conversations on liturgy and popular culture, new forms of worship within ancient traditions, and mission in the twenty-first century. In my interviews for "Emerging Churches, Ian served as a great conversation partner; in addition, I found Ian to be a prophetic practitioner of experimental forms of worship.

On Friday, June 15th at 3pm-5pm, in Travis Auditorium at Fuller Seminary, Ian will be speaking on "Church, Mission & Evangelism in a new age of holistic spirituality". It should be great. The event is open, so please consider yourselves invited...

On Robert Webber 1933-2007

2007-05-01T17:11:28-07:00

Three panel experts, each representing a particular Christian tradition (evangelical, mainline, and liberal), sat on barstools facing the 1000 plus crowd. The interviewer -- Brian McLaren, was poised to ask the evangelical representative the next question. "What does your tradition do so well that you could lead the rest of us in?" I winced, as I had been part of some intra-faith dialogues where evangelicals did not fare so well. I prepared for the worst.

"PASSION is what other Christian traditions can learn from us." He went on, but I don't remember the rest -- I didn't need to hear it. I felt great relief -- he nailed it. I needn't have worried. For the evangelical answering the question was none other than Robert Webber.

It made me recall a conversation that I had previous to that Emergent Convention, with a social activist/professor working in downtown LA. Knowing his liberal theological leanings, I asked him how he felt about the evangelical students from Fuller that would come down to work with him. 'I love the evangelicals," he said, "they have passion -- they really think they can change the world." Yes, I think Bob Webber was on to something...

His work on Ancient/Future Worship opened up a new world for the many who wearied of singing endless praise choruses. His encyclopedic knowledge of worship served the church at a time when many began to mine the depths of the past. His work with the Institute of Worship Studies will insure that his contributions will continue to form the worshippers of tomorrow.

I only met Robert Webber once -- we served on a panel on the Emerging Church at Talbot two years ago. During the past year, I also worked with him as one of the writers aka the "Board of Reference" of "A Call to an Ancient Evangelical Future". Webber impressed me with his commitment to worship, to theology, to evangelicalism and ecumenism.

Robert Webber served as an ambassador for the Christian faith -- an evangelical truly worthy of the name...

Breaking the Missional Code Part II

2007-04-27T10:03:53-07:00

Yesterday I posted the first part of a review on Ed Stetzer and David Putman's Breaking the Missional Code. I will briefly wrap up that review today. In yesterday's post, I celebrated the large amount of missiology that found its way into a book on church renewal and church planting. I had a couple of critiques yesterday as well -- the conflation of church marketing with cultural exegesis, and two, the whole church/unchurched typology.

Technorati Tags: book review, Ed Stetzer, missional church, David Putman

Today I wanted to comment on a couple more concerns. The authors discuss the emerging church within a three-part scheme: relevants, reconstructionists, and revisionists. They permit the first two and refuse the third. Besides disliking the term 'revisionist' (aren't they always the bad guys?), I think this rubric is problematic for the following reasons.

In the nineteenth century, Rufus Anderson and Henry Venn contributed a new idea to missiology -- that of the three-self formula. They advocated that a new church work or mission, if it is to become indigenous, must be self-supporting, self-propagating, and self-governing. My colleague, Charles Van Engen, mission theologian (and former President of the Reformed Church of America), advocates a fourth 'self' -- self-theologizing. Why his addition to the formula?

A new community must be self-theologizing or it will become nominal. Self-theologizing, how? To become an indigenous expression of faith, a community must form its life around scripture, engaging their culture within a praxis-reflection orientation. In other words, the community goes deep into the word in order to answer the questions of their culture. They 'practice' those answers in the world, and then reflect biblically again. Instead of self-theologizing, however, what frequently happens is that new faith communities are given a theology that answers nineteenth-century questions, or sixteenth-century questions, or fifth-century questions. These historical works will undoubtedly be helpful, but they will inevitably leave some questions unanswered. Each context presents its own issues. If the deep questions of a culture go unanswered, then Christians will seek answers elsewhere, without reference to scripture, thus inviting in nominality.

What Stetzman and Putman call revisionist I see as self-theologizing: reading scripture in light of a culture's questions. These emerging "self-theologians" copy the example of historical theologians engaging their particular culture) but they do not necessarily copy their responses.

A few more comments on the book. A strength and a weakness of the book are the standalone chapters. While it is great to read a chapter on leadership or networks, it would be helpful if the chapters were more integrated as a whole. In one chapter the missio Dei is touted as the missional response to the culture, rather than the Great Commission. However, the missio Dei is not mentioned again while a chapter is devoted to the Great Commission. In another part of the book, they write about various church models and contextualization theory, but the bulk of their examples are megachurches from highly Christianized parts of the country. I wanted to see a bit more exploration of the non-traditional and contextual churches they advocate in their model.

These critiques should not take away from a very solid, hugely informative book by Stetzer and Putman. They have served the church well with such a comprehensive endeavor.

Breaking the Missional Code by Ed Stetzer and David Putman

2007-04-26T16:53:47-07:00

Ed Stetzer and David Putman’s Breaking the Missional Code gives church leaders the tools needed to become a missional presence in their community. In down-to-earth style, the authors take complex missiological concepts and translate them into achievable church practices. The book covers a lot of ground, addressing how to overcome the barriers to mission within existing models of church. I consider Stetzer and Putman’s work to be a valuable conversation partner in all things missional. I couldn’t be more pleased that so much contextualization material made it into a North American church- planting book.

Technorati Tags: book review, church growth, David Putman, Ed Stetzer, missional church

Some of the ideas I appreciated were as follows. The authors begin by describing how the culture has changed significantly. They nuance modernity and postmodernity to demonstrate that we experience both these phenomena on a daily basis. They write a good bit about our identity as those who have been sent by Christ into the world. They provide a helpful chart on differences with modern and emerging preaching…

They offer a helpful summary of the shifts from church growth to church health to missional church, advocating missional church as the proper response to our context. This includes a missio Dei perspective on engaging, rather than relying solely on the Great Commission. Stetzer and Putnam then list some practical outworkings of missional church.

Many of their contributions are particularly insightful. They write that discipleship begins before conversion, that one participates in community before he or she converts, that people need this kind of experience with Christians before conversion. They also add the missiological insight that Christians do not bring the gospel into a context, but that God is already at work with those outside the faith and asks us to join Him where He leads. Quite rightly, they write that church planters must learn from the context they serve in. They are to go into all the world: into people groups, population segments, and cultural environments. They are to learn from others without copying them. They form networks with other
like-minded souls.

I will share a few of the concerns I had reading the book. Throughout the work, the authors use a typology of churched and unchurched. I don’t believe churched/unchurched is a helpful way to frame reality. It seems to imply that church is inherently good and unchurched is correspondingly bad. Instead of an ecclesiological rubric, however, I think a missiological paradigm might be more helpful. Paul Hiebert,
missiologist, writes about centered and bounded sets. What matters is not whether we are in or out (churched or unchurched), but instead it is our direction that matters – are we moving closer to the King (or Kingdom) or moving further away?

Why is that important? Well, given our knowledge of history, we see that some churches do not exhibit kingdom aspects -- they do not manifest the fruits of the spirit, nor do they stand for justice in the world. Using Hiebert’s rubric, these churches would be moving away from the center. Conversely, some unchurched people serve the poor (among many other good things) and are moving in God’s direction. Again, we measure what we value, and church, apart from kingdom activities, becomes a club, a lifestyle enclave, a meaningless endeavor. Indeed, the church is dependent on its mission for its very identity. So, kingdom and movement are better markers of faithfulness to the gospel than are churched and unchurched.

In many parts of the book, I find myself agreeing with the headings but not always the details. For example, in Chapter Two, the authors have as a subtitle “Exegeting the Community”. As a missiologist, my heart leaps when I see those words. However, the only example they offer is Rick Warren’s door-to- door efforts asking if people go to church in the area, and what they would want out of a church, etc. This is not exegeting the culture -- it is church marketing. If the church is penultimate and the reign of God ultimate (as the authors state later in the book), then church marketing questions are the wrong questions to ask to get at underlying realities. For our mission to be driven missiologically as opposed to ecclesiologically, our questions must shift. In the door-to-door scenario just listed, the questions might
become: what would it look like if God came to town? Where is there injustice or conflict in our community, and how do the poor fare? What are our most acute problems as a community? Do you think it might be possible that God wants you to solve those problems? Would you like to join a group of neighbors that will seek to resolve that problem (work for justice)? These questions move away from ‘church as club’ to ‘church in service of the coming reign of God.’ In this scenario, participation in the reign of God gives the church its true identity.

I realize I have a bit more to say – I’ll look to conclude tomorrow with Part II.

What is the Difference between Missional and Emerging Churches?

2007-04-18T09:45:55-07:00

Allelon just posted a video where Alan Roxburgh interviews me. In this clip, Alan asks me about the missional church, the emerging church, and about the differences between the two. I describe how I teach missional church material, and I also tell a bit of my story as well -- how I became involved in the missional conversation.

Technorati Tags: Allelon, alternative worship, Emerging_Church, missional church, video

The Congregation Strikes Back?

2007-04-11T10:56:27-07:00

Bill Kinnon, at Achieveable Ends, wrote a post that captivated the blogosphere. In it, he plays off of Jay Rosen's The People Formerly Known as the Audience. Titled The People Formerly Known as the Congregation, Bill rants against leadership that leads by 3-point sermons, raises money for building programs, and solicits volunteers to run the various ministries. But more than that, Bill rants against what it means to be a member in a congregation today -- he feels 'used' and writes that he is no longer going to be a passive recipient of all things church. The tone is 'don't do it to me, but partner with me, treat me like an adult -- a co-producer of church.'

Bill sparked a number of follow up posts that piggy-backed on his idea, written from the perspective of pastors and others who agree that the system is not really working. Of course, a passive congregation is not particularly the pastor's fault, the congregants' fault, or even the seminaries' fault. Our entire church system is built around a Christendom model of church where we pay a special class of people to do ministry to and for everyone else.

Over the past ten years or so, the missional church conversation centered around the idea of equipping entire congregations to serve as missionaries to their surrounding cultures. They work with churches who embody this Christendom passivity. They look to help them re-imagine what it means to be the people of God.

I believe Bill taps into another dynamic not addressed by the missional church conversation. Bill speaks for those who already left. They couldn't tolerate being treated as children and opted out. Now located outside "church", these active (as opposed to passive) Christians create alternative ways to worship God, encourage one another, and witness to their faith.

Bill's inspired rant describes the depths to which we need to re-think congregational life in a post-Christendom, postmodern context.

Technorati Tags: church, Jay Rosen, Leadership, missional church, Bill Kinnon, seminary

From little c to Big C church...

2007-04-10T10:28:10-07:00

Yesterday I wrote a review of George Barna's Revolution. Many fear that Barna dismisses the need for local churches. I don't know if Barna goes that far. What Barna dismantles are particular sociological expressions of church -- those of American congregationalism, rather than particular gatherings of believers. “Revolutionaries realize --- sometimes very reluctantly – that the core issue isn’t whether or not one is involved in a local church, but whether or not one is connected to the body of believers in the pursuit of godliness and worship." Barna writes that one needs to be connected to a body of believers in the pursuit of God, he doesn't say where and when, and his readers find that worrisome.

Technorati Tags: church, George Barna, globalization, modernity

Barna writes about small "c" church and big "C" church. "You see, it is not about church. It’s about the Church – that is, the people who actively participate in the intentional advancement of God’s kingdom in partnership with the Holy Spirit and other believers." Small “c” church represents those local believers with whom we seek to follow Christ together face-to-face, and big “C” church are those faceless
others with whom we follow Christ. Barna is right, the church has made a shift from small “c” to big “C”, however, not in absolute terms.

Barna seems to say we are either small "c" Christians or big "C" Christians. Instead, I see Christians on a spectrum with little "c" on the left end and big "C" on the right. The whole scale equals our participation in church. For the last few hundred years, be have continued to shift to the right on the scale. How so? I will list a few recent examples.

Many functions of local churches have been displaced by global “C” influences. Witness the many who download sermons from Rob Bell. Do these sermons function as ancillary activities for these listeners, or do they significantly form them spiritually? Do we learn more about the faith from our pastor's sermon or from theological books or online communities? The same goes with music – is our primary musical expression of worship in the Sunday meeting, or do we connect with God through many other sources? For many, itunes functions as worship leader. In terms of community, do we experience community within our “official” local church, or do we share connections with many others, including friendships, occasional gatherings, and online conversations? Indeed, we are formed by the many activities of which we are a part – and our connections of church are global and go beyond the 'brick and mortar' of Sunday morning.

Modernity stretches space so that more of our lives are connected to those with whom we do not share a face-to-face relationship. The church has stretched as well, so that much of how we pursue God works within relationships transcends local church walls. Many Christians seem afraid to acknowledge this.

Barna summarizes his ideas with …"the Revolution is about recognizing that we are not called to go to church. We are called to be the Church.” Indeed, Christians need other believers in order to
be a sign, to point to, and our best days, to be a foretaste of the coming kingdom. Christians continue Jesus' mission in diverse ways, both locally and globally, through face-to-face and faceless
commitments. To call one 'real' church and the other secondary belittles the significance of the global body of Christ. Just as modernity stretches space, we need to stretch our thinking on what it
means to be the church in a globalized era.

Revolution by George Barna

2007-04-09T13:23:11-07:00

I know this book review is a little late out of the starting gate. Revolution is required reading for my students this quarter, and I thought, if they need to review it, then it is only fair that I review it too! So here goes. I begin with an overview of what I see Barna saying followed by some interaction with his thesis.

Overview of Revolution
George Barna, in Revolution, touts a new form of church that recently developed in the United States. Dissatisfied with local churches, twenty-million “revolutionaries” created forms of spirituality outside organized religion. This spiritual revolution came about because of seven trends in society: the increase of Busters and Mosaics, moral relativism, dismissal of the irrelevant, advent of technology, priority of relationship, participation, desire for meaning.

Technorati Tags: book review, George Barna

Barna traces the revolutionary life to Jesus and categorizes the
radical traits in Jesus’ life. Barna identifies the life of a
revolutionary, how it is Americans might become revolutionaries, how
revolutions shapes revolutionaries, and how one might know if he/she is
a revolutionary. Barna sees the characteristics of revolutionaries as
rooted in the activities of the early church. These modern-day zealots
give supreme allegiance to the Bible while possessing seven passions:
daily intimate worship, faith-based conversations, the centrality of
faith, a life of servanthood, generosity, spiritual friendship, and the
important spiritual role of the family. Throughout the book, Barna puts
the onus of holy living on the individual Christian --  that a right
relationship with God and with others is the ultimate responsibility of
the Christian.

These seven trends in society, combined with the fact that local
churches fail to foster these seven passions in their congregants’
lives, caused local churches to decline. Barna refers to these failing
forms of church as “macro” types: local church, house church, family
meeting, and cyber church. He does not believe any form of macro church
has any hope for the future. Instead of macro forms of church, American
Christians are moving towards micro forms, what Barna labels
distributed models of faith. These mini-movements provide ways for
revolutionary Christians to practice their faith. Mini-movements
include worship events, marketplace fellowship groups, and Internet
connections, to name a few. Instead of working within local
congregations (small-c church), these revolutionaries connect more
widely with Christians in various locations (large-C church).

Barna imagines what critics might say of his proposal. They might
point out that abandoning the local congregation equates to foregoing
assembling together. Barna “responds” that assembling happens in many
ways. Other critics might say it fosters laziness, but Barna “counters”
that existing congregations are not exempt from laziness.  Finally,
some critics might say that the lack of local churches will destroy the
institution of church itself, but Barna points out that the church has
little influence over the culture anyway.

Barna writes that American religion will shift dramatically over the
next twenty years. Churches will lose 50% of the their attendance. In
their place, alternative, revolutionary  “communities” will form.
Although they make up only 5 percent of the population today,
revolutionary-like formations will become 33 percent of the American
population by 2025.   

Barna concludes with an exhortation for all to become
revolutionaries. He hopes that those alienated from church will gain
hope from this book and choose to do likewise. He hopes that many will
hear the call to be the church rather than go to church.

Stop, you had me at Revolution!
I
agree that a revolution is occurring. No doubt, dramatic shifts
occurred in the lives of local churches in the West. I’m not sure I
agree with Barna’s reasons for why it happened, the description of it,
or even the remedy. However, I applaud Barna for connecting the dots
for the rest of us.   

Since the 1960s, Christians in the US have increasingly moved away
from institutionalized forms of church. Spirituality is up, practice of
religion is down, many churches have lost numbers, especially the
oldest denominations. Increasing moves towards intentional communities,
small groups, alternative spiritualities, abound. The American church,
weighed down from the bureaucratization and institutionalization of
modernity, couldn’t cope with the cultural changes of a very mobile
population abandoning connections to their parent’s forms of faith.

American Christians, moving towards organic forms of spirituality,
felt increasingly alienated from institutional expressions of church.
Not only from the US, but reports from Australia, New Zealand, and the
UK reveal that the fastest growing wing of the church are those
Christians who are leaving institutional church. They are not
abandoning their faith or even church itself but feel that “organized”
church is not helping them worship God and serve others. I do believe
Barna’s seven reasons have something to do with this change. However, I
believe they are subsets of much larger developments, most specifically
post-Christendom, postmodernity (alluded to above), and globalization.

To be honest, I found much of Barna’s approach to the data
difficult. I felt that things were too simple. He listed seven reasons
for the spiritual revolution, seven passions of revolutionaries, and the
revolutionary aspects of Jesus. These all seemed proof-texted and
interpreted through individualistic notions of faith. I am not against
simple – I prefer simple solutions. But he doesn’t tell me how he gets
to the simple, so I remain unconvinced. However, I do want to listen to
Barna – he has listened to the American church perhaps more than any
other researcher, and even if he is not forthcoming with stories to
substantiate his points, his intuitions are worth consideration.

Tomorrow I will write about Barna's idea of little "c" versus big "C" church...

Christ is Risen

2007-04-09T11:06:21-07:00

He is risen indeed!

(Thanks Jonny, from Grace London, for the picture.)

Good Friday

2007-04-06T03:00:00-07:00

;

From the highly creative Moot Community, London. Wish I were there.

Technorati Tags: Church service, Good Friday, Moot

What does a Missional Evangelical Seminary look like?

2007-04-05T03:00:00-07:00

Last November I was asked the question, what would it take to move an evangelical seminary in the direction of missional church thinking and practice? Writing with my friend Mark Lau Branson, we offered some first thoughts towards an answer. This paper was one of five distributed at the Allelon Missional Schools Project in Dallas, serving the discussions as a conversation starter.

Technorati Tags: Allelon, Mark Lau Branson, missional church, seminary

Missional Seminary Project

2007-04-04T03:00:00-07:00

In February, I participated in the launch of the Allelon Missional Seminary Project, a three-day conversation on transitioning seminaries to a missional paradigm. Twenty-four seminaries participated by sending a team of five people respectively. During the three days, Alan Roxburgh, Pat Keifert, and Craig Van Gelder (among others) invited us to re-imagine our seminaries for life after Christendom. Time was spent in large group lectures, small focus groups, and in-house seminary discussions.

It was quite an ambitious agenda, given the differing starting points of the seminaries. Some seminaries were over two hundred years old, a few were less than five years old. Some were very well versed in the missional conversation over the last ten years, and some didn't understand the missional conversation at all. There were a fairly diverse set of schools included in the conversation including liberal, evangelical, conservative, Catholic, and Anabaptist traditions.

Five writers were tapped to present discussion papers to get the conversation going. Each of the writers were to write from their particular tradition: one Nazarene, one Evangelical, one Mainline, and one Mennonite. I co-wrote the evangelical paper, and I will share that on the blog tomorrow.

Technorati Tags: Allelon, Leadership, missional church