During some times of solitude in the midst of travels this week, I have been meditating on 2 Timothy 3, especially the first 7 verses where Paul warned Timothy about some people that he would encounter. The list of attributes is downright awful. Paul included that some would be: brutal, treacherous, abusive, greedy, heartless, unappeasable. Paul warned about some who would take advantage of women, be burdened with sins, and overcome with uncontrollable passions. They would lack self control. Timothy was to avoid these ungrateful, unholy people. But of course. It only makes sense.

But in the whole of the letter and at several points in chapter 3, it seems that Paul was saying that these were people in the community or, to be more specific, people in the church. These are ones that had an appearance of godliness but denied its power. And then a conviction hit me with force…. What if that is me in some ways?

Now I don’t want to start bleeding all over blog posts here, but what could be worse than to be one who had an appearance of godliness all the while not experiencing His power? What, I wonder, could be more frightful than to be one who chose to follow Christ who does not fully trust Him? Profoundly convicted, I am certain this is me all the while that I am set on the course of mission with only a passing interest in prayer. This is me when I am seeking to bring about transformation while not begging him to transform others and to still be transforming me.

Paul’s list is terrible period. But it is frightful when I look honestly and see my picture there in too many of those descriptions.

God change me.

Storying has potential application in urban centers among nationals and what some may consider an emerging people group of transnationals–people that are more at home in international cities than they would be in smaller towns or villages among people that share a language and cultural background. I have used elements of storying with post-literates among multiple cultures and feel like this deserves more trial both in the U.S. and among the nations.

Ceasar Kalinowski – Story of God from Verge Network on Vimeo.

How To Disciple People – Jeff Vanderstelt and Caesar Kalinowski from Verge Network on Vimeo.

Norwich, CT

Brunswick, GA

Abilene, TX

Wichita Falls, TX

Flint, MI

Champaign, IL

Santa Barbara, CA

Reno, NV

Carson City, NV

Now these aren’t your typical prime cities for church planting.  These aren’t seminary cities, these cities don’t contain large corporations or tons of affluent people.  In fact, the opposite is true. Fox Business.com lists these cities as the 9 American Cities nearly destroyed by the recession.  Planting in these types of cities goes against conventional wisdom.  Andy Stanley planted Buckhead among the most affluent of Atlanta and recently the team of Giglio/Tomlin also chose Atlanta, a city which has a mega-church for every Starbucks around the city.  I’m not saying they chose easy locations….but it makes you wonder….what if Giglio and Tomlin had planted in Flint, MI where there is a 21% poverty rate….would they have a mega -church before they even opened the doors.

What is the purpose of planting a church?  To build a name, a brand, to launch a career, to gather disgruntled sheep from smaller, more traditional flocks…..or is it more than that.  I see the church as a manifestation of “His Kingdom come” here on earth.  A community of authenticity, a community that offers hope, a helping hand, a message of hope to those that are hurting.  These 9 cities don’t need entertaining, they don’t need self-promoting, churches with laser shows and billion dollar budgets.  They need people that will love them, serve them, and help them come together for the greater good.  They need pastors who would rather feed the poor than dine with the wealthy, they need pastors who would rather cater to the spiritually lost than the spiritually disgruntled, they need pastors who would rather spend times in homes than they would at conferences.  They need you!

-edited 1/25 for content and clarity

Walking down the hallway, I thought of several I know that had been sent off to take the gospel to the nations by their loved ones. Sent out by their aged loved ones that would are living in places much like the one I visited. Some of these have no one to care for them except for the nurses and staff at the nursing home where they live. Yet, it was clear to a parent or loved one that having their remaining family that is in close contact with them to go and take the gospel to those that do not know Jesus Christ was of utmost importance.

I had a new, profound respect for those sending ones that treasured the lives of others more than receiving loving care in person on their last years on the earth. May they be blessed. May this encourage us to live with abandon as the sent ones to take the gospel to others.

In short, I agree with Dodson. Also, I commend him for promoting contextualization as several have criticized it of late. His piece raises a couple points I want to write on quickly.

First, whether what Dodson calls syncretism is actually that or obscurantism as normally evaluated on a contextualization scale is debatable. Though I would contend the latter would be consistent with most evaluations, I see the situation he writes about as a possible combination of woes. On one side of the scale by making the gospel unclear due to forms that are held–he mentions “building, music, service, website design”–which may not fit the culture one is entering being a classic expression of obscurantism. On the other side, the consumeristic vice of “blending Christianity with another religion, in this case consumerism” could be described as syncretism. For this to be syncretism, though, church participants would be worshipping the objects which had been intended to aid in worship in addition to the One who alone is worthy of praise. This would be a very strong statement–a very strong accusation.

Second, and, in my opinion, the most important is that it is normal to be dealing with beginning contextualization issues in U.S. church planting. Issues such as whether or not a denomination needs to be on a sign or what style of music a people should sing, or whether or not to multi-site, or fill in the blank. In a number of contexts overseas, however, the reverse is of great importance. A much more common concern when on mission to other nations is what denotes over-contextualization. Cross-cultural planters must be careful to seek to express the gospel and the church in ways that are able to be understood and fit within the rhythms and moires of life in that context while seeking to keep the gospel of Christ as the point of transformation, the point of tension.

The contextualization issues that planters address today are important, but they are basic compared with some deeper questions that need to be addressed. As planters and church leaders, we would do well to be seeking to contextualize at deeper levels.

So, while this is not a political forum, I thought it interesting to point out this video because it was interesting to me to watch the uncomfortable chuckles that came from the session moderator who was miked up and the audience as the camera pans out to capture the grimaces on a regular basis.

This is illustrative of a natural response to criticism. The presenter gave an in your face effort to force some level of disorientation for the audience, but the response of the moderator at the end of the video shows the resistance to really considering Mr. O’Leary’s point. It was an effort to defend the present based on actions taken some time prior. Mr. O’Leary quickly addresses the point and seems to make a mockery of the whole thing.

As it is easy to see the awkwardness that comes with a hollow self-defense, it is an opportunity for us to see the strange responses we are apt to give to criticism. The Pharisees did it when they were skewered by the rabbi claiming to be the Son of God. We do it in defense of church as is. What if we really were to evaluate criticism that comes our way to see if there was any truth to what the speaker was communicating?

I have enjoyed a sabbatical from email, blogs and the like for the most part over the past weeks, but am slowly getting back into it. For 2012, I have been doing some reflecting, goal setting and prioritization. As a result of this, I am planning to write more. A LOT more. While that doesn’t necessarily mean more frequent blog posts, it does mean more candid. It also means that some other projects are receiving more attention. More on these in the future.

If you find these or future writings here helpful, feel free to add this to your RSS feed and/or recommend it to others. We don’t do a lot of self promotion around here. That’s probably not going to change a whole lot in this new year.

To help me ease back into the blogging thing, I thought it easy enough to put down my coffee long enough to post a look back at the top 10 posts here over the past 12 months. Please note that I promised this as easy, whether or not helpful is up to you. Some of these are mine and some are from my old friend, but new cohort here–Grady Bauer. I hope to see him around these parts over the next months a lot more. I’m sure he will be candid too.

Thanks for reading. Thanks for interacting. Thanks most of all for seeking to live life for His glory and the furtherance of His Kingdom! That’s what matters.

1. launch this – a challenge that church planters face
2. then and now – an amazing pic w/ history rhyming
3. i collect bad wines – go Grady!
4. response to Long’s piece – ideas on Southern Baptists, mission strategy, UUPGs & swarm theory
5. who will speak into their narrative – call for missions to influence the church – go Grady!
6. brewing conversation – umm, I’m not exactly sure
7. humility and shame – another story
8. simply UK – helpful for those interested in understanding the UK
9. a glimpse of the missio Dei – several have and continue to ask for this image
10. the story of a man and his country – this was a story that fascinated me

And again, a heart-felt Happy New Year!

If that was the Christmas story, then it would be, I am convinced, a pretty pathetic tale. Maybe this story would elicit frustration or even a shaking, clenched fist as the helpless stood begging for His intervention. With arms raised the shepherds and wise men could have cried out, “where are you?” Ultimately, plodding along or suffering silently would be the best anyone could have hoped. But, thankfully, that is not the Christmas story.

We celebrate Emmanuel, God with us. The king of kings took the form of a helpless baby. His parents would wrap him in a blanket to keep him warm, feed him, and follow The Father’s direction to keep him away from murderous soldiers. Leaving heaven, he was born into humility. His need as a child for others to intervene on his behalf is apparent. Yet to a much greater extent at that time and still today, we need him–desperately. Still, we celebrate Emmanuel. We have hope and direction because he is God with us.

Over the past several days I have been approached on a couple of occasions by people with tear-soaked eyes. Desperate. Deep concerns visible in their faces, the weight of the world pressing on them, they cried out for help.

During this same period, we have experienced a number of physical ailments in our immediate and extended family ranging from minor to life-threatening. I have been to the doctor more in the last 7 days than in the past several years.

We have family and friends that have recently lost jobs and are trying to figure out how to pay the bills. Another relative continues in a job with a company that has just declared bankruptcy.

A broken people, we live in a broken world. But, we celebrate the Truth of Christmas–the Christ. We press on because of his presence among us. At times we carry on with our hearts filled with hope. At other times we struggle to take one more step while anxious or even desperate to see the smallest glimpse of his salvation for us. All the time we are sent to follow in the steps of Emmanuel. We celebrate God with us.