Mason has become quite the singer, this is him leading is brothers in some of his favorite songs.

Last night I had the honor of participating in our local Martin Luther King, Jr celebration service.  This is always a meaningful event because we get to worship God together with a very diverse group of churches.  I led the invocation during the gathering.  This is what I shared:

Dr. King once spoke the following words:

“No American can afford to be apathetic about the problem of racial justice. It is a problem that meets every man at his front door.”

This is so very true.

However, so very many of us in the world have become so very good at closing our front door and ignoring the pain, the injustice and the brokenness that is right on our front steps.

We have been conditioned to seek a comfort above all things. But I believe this search for comfort can be an enemy to justice.

It is this search that makes us close our doors and shut our eyes to the broken reality of our world. We’d rather live in our imaginary world of comfort that enables apathy than live in the real, broken world that demands our compassion and action.

Dr. King refused to be satisfied with a world that closed its eyes and shut its front doors. He refused to be quiet until every person opened our eyes to the real world around them. Thankfully his legacy lives on through many men and women who have followed his example.

So tonight, let us too follow the example of Dr. King. Let us not avert our eyes from injustice or allow our own souls to slowly die to apathy.

Instead, let us open our eyes to the pain and despair that is present in our world and allow our lives to be defined by generosity, compassion and self-sacrifice.

And let us do so in hope.

Hope that truly one day God will wipe every tear from our eyes.

That death shall truly be no more.

That there will surely no longer be any more mourning or crying or pain.

For one day this way of things will pass away, for behold, God is making all things new.

Until that time, let us pray together the words of Jesus, “May Your kingdom come and your will be done here on earth as it is in heaven.”

As a pastor who has spent the last nine years living a bi-vocational life (sometimes tri-vocational), I appreciated all the discussion on David Fitch’s blog post back in November. I posted the rhythm I have been living for the last nine months back in November also.  Things have changed a tad for me since I am working a lot less hours at Sbux and we are in the midst of a transition at The Well that will probably bring some changes to my current rhythm of life.   But, if you are interested in the topic, read David’s blog and be sure to read all the discussion below.  There are some really good thoughts and questions addressed.

Also, Jason Coker is going to be starting a series on whether missional church leaders should be paid.  I absolutely love the way Jason thinks so this should be a good, challenging series of posts.

So, apparently I am one of the top 55 pastor bloggers.  Not sure how that list was made. But I guess its cool. And hey, I am #33 right after the one and only Eugene Cho.  Maybe  that’s because we share a name (my middle name is Eugene and I used to be embarrassed of it until I started reading Eugene Peterson and met Eugene Cho!).   In light of that, Naked Pastor has posted a list of 10 suggestions for pastor bloggers.

It’s a good list and one that I would add that has really helped me in my blogging is this:

Don’t stop being a pastor on your blog.

So many people try to increase their readership by being provocative, edgy and use it to find ways to push the envelope.  There is a place for that. But you have to be aware of how a public profile like your blog will influence how people hear your sermons and follow your leadership.

Basic point is this: don’t think that what you write on your blog (or twitter or facebook for that matter) doesn’t impact and influence (positively or negatively) your ability to lead your congregation.

Sometimes I miss really obvious things. I think it is because of familiarity.  You know, you see or hear something over and over again and you miss the significance of something.  For example, most of you would know the name Dick Butkus (pronounced by most people: Dick Buttkiss).  He’s one of the best Chicago Bears of all time and a symbol of the smash mouth style the Bears have tried to have over the years.  Well, about two years ago, after being a Bears fan for my whole life, it finally hit me just how unfortunate this guy’s name is.  I mean, Dick Butkus!?  It doesn’t get much worse that than eh?  How would you have liked to be him in grade school and middle school.  It makes me wonder, was he that tough because of his name? It’s kinda like that Johnny Cash song “The Boy Named Sue?”  Son, we gave you this name so you could grow up to be a really tough football player.

The other day, I had another moment like that.  I was talking with some friends and somehow we got talking about monk’s and that fact that they wear “habits.”  It never really occurred to me that they call them habits because of the fact that monk’s from religious orders pattern their lives after a set of habits or practices.  The garments they wear are a symbol of the kind of life they are trying to lead.

I’m pretty sure we underestimate the kinds of habits we are living.  In fact, I’d say we are fairly unaware of the habits that are forming our lives. We’ve probably even become slaves to habits that are probably more formative to the way of our culture than they are formative to the way of Christ.

This is why I think its vital that we ask hard questions, as individuals and especially as communities of faith, about the habits that are forming our lives.

Alan Roxburgh and Scott Boren write in their super-helpful new book, Introducing the Missional Church,

“A local church is to be an embodiment of what God is calling all creation to be through the Spirit. As a sign, witness, and foretaste, local churches should live as a contrast society right in the middle of their neighborhoods. It does this by inviting its people to transform their lives by developing habits such as those related in the stories told above: practicing hospitality, learning to be present in the community and inviting those in their neighborhoods to taste and see what it means to be shaped by Jesus.”

What sorts of habits do you have in your life? Which ones are forming you in the way of Christ?  Which ones are forming you in the way of the culture?

What sorts of habits are forming your church? Which ones are forming your life together in the way of Christ?  Which ones are forming your life together in the way of the culture?

Edwin Friedman spoke the following at the Baccalaureate address to Albert Einstein High School in 1964:

“The universal ingredient and force which permeates all of life – namely change – is changing for the faster, and this means that it will become more and more necessary for each of us to be more resilient and flexible, more spontaneous in dealing with the new and unforeseen, and it will become less and less easy to find security and stability by just adopting the traditional customs and ideas and attitudes of the past.” (From the book: What Are You Going to Do With Your Life?)

Sounds applicable to the church eh?

One of the more challenging things (Among many others) with being a pastor at The Well is the constant need for us define if we are an “emerging church” or not.  I’m not going to get into that here, I’ve already done so elsewhere. But, I believe the reason this question gets asked so often (mostly only by Christians, those who aren’t Christians don’t seem to care so much) is because there is so much misunderstanding and confusion about what the emerging church actually is (or isn’t).

So, in an effort to bring about better understanding I am going to be leading an emerging church reading group this summer. In this group, we’ll basically spend the summer reading through some of the key texts around this topic. The intent of this group is not to come to a final conclusion on whether the emerging church is evil or not, but rather, the goal will be understanding.

So, here is my question for all you emerging church “experts” out there.  What books would you include in this study if you could only choose four? Why only four? Mostly, that’s all we have time for.

I’m mostly looking for “source material” here when it comes to the topic.  I’ve got my own ideas and my own list but I’d love to hear your ideas.

Oh, if you are from the Philly area and are interested in being part of this group please let me know.  We’ll meet at least once a month during the summer (maybe more) and it’s more than likely we’ll have some surprise guests.

Sing the honest words of U2 in this song tonight as I process through the loss of a friend tonight.

Heaven on Earth, we need it now
I’m sick of all of this hanging around
Sick of sorrow, sick of the pain
I’m sick of hearing again and again
That there’s gonna be peace on Earth

Where I grew up there weren’t many trees
Where there was we’d tear them down
And use them on our enemies
They say that what you mock
Will surely overtake you
And you become a monster
So the monster will not break you

And it’s already gone too far
Who said that if you go in hard
You won’t get hurt?

Jesus can you take the time
To throw a drowning man a line
Peace on Earth
Tell the ones who hear no sound
Whose sons are living in the ground
Peace on Earth
No whos or whys
No one cries like a mother cries
For peace on Earth
She never got to say goodbye
To see the color in his eyes
Now he’s in the dirt
Peace on Earth

They’re reading names out over the radio
All the folks the rest of us won’t get to know
Sean and Julia, Gareth and Ann and Breda
Their lives are bigger than any big idea

Jesus can you take the time
To throw a drowning man a line
Peace on Earth
To tell the ones who hear no sound
Whose sons are living in the ground
Peace on Earth
Jesus sing a song you wrote
The words are sticking in my throat
Peace on Earth
Hear it every Christmas time
But hope and history won’t rhyme
So what’s it worth
This peace on Earth

Note: Below is my fictional account of a meeting between some emerging church pastors and the late Karl Barth.  I am not sure why I had to note that it is fictional…but you can never be too safe. All references to actual people are simply supposed to be funny, unless they are supposed to be serious :).  Also, I wrote this as a paper for a John Franke class so that is why there is so much brown-nosing to him going on in here.

The setting is a dark historical bar in Germany. This small German town is the site of the first ever International Emergent Gathering. Its evening time and we find ourselves here after a day of compelling sessions where scholar John Franke has just given what will soon become known as “The International Emerging Church Lectures.”

Of course, a group of those attending the emergent gathering have opted for the obligatory cigar and beer outing to the local german pub since the gathering coincides with Octoberfest. As they are joking about how amazing it is that the small church from Feasterville, PA called The Well would be able to have the global impact its had, in walks Karl Barth. Nobody recognizes him at first.  But after a few moments someone says, “Doesn’t that dude remind you of Karl Barth?”

Overhearing them talking, Barth turns towards them and introduces himself. Of course, the biggest surprise is that he is supposed to be dead, but no one really asks any questions because they are so in awe of his brilliance. (After all, John Franke just got done proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that Barth was, in fact, the greatest theologian of the 20th century to which all the conservative evangelicals in the room finally agreed).

After Karl Barth learns that they are a bunch of “emerging church pastors” he not surprisingly asks, “What is the emerging church?” No one really has any answer but they invite him to sit down and let them buy him a beer.

The conversation that ensues quickly becomes the most blogged about conversation ever.  And, it also becomes the most tweeted event of the 21st century.  Emerging Church blogger extraordinaire Andrew Jones (aka Tall Skinny Kiwi) blogs that night and he writes a post called: “Eight things Karl Barth said to the emerging church pastors sitting around having good beer in a German pub during the first ever International Emergent Gathering.”

Here is a summary Karl’s thoughts for this group (yes, I just said Karl. He and I are on a first name basis now. We shared a beer after all…there weren’t enough mugs and we had to literally share):

1. Keep embracing mystery.
2. Keep starting over, again and again and again.
3. In all your reconstruction, keep Christ at the center.
4. As I go from general to particular in dogmatics, do so in leadership? Sounds like a good idea…
5. Why are you smoking cigars, pipes are much better.
6. As you reconsider it, please, please don’t stop preaching.
7. Guys, I love your black framed glasses

Explanations of these conversation points:

Barth: “Keep embracing mystery.”
One of the things that the emerging church is known for is the love and acceptance of mystery. The modern era of theology is known for the ability to have everything fit into specific boxes and compartments so you could wrap your theology in a nice box with a bow on top to present to someone else. The postmodern philosophy and understanding of knowledge has had a great influence on how the emerging church has embraced mystery and the ability to know truth as concretely as the modern world would like to say one can.

Gibbs and Bolger write, “New forms of churches have restored an atmosphere of mystery and awe…” (22). I believe that Barth would have been happy to embrace this understanding of mystery. John Franke writes, “Barth increasingly believed that to speak of God was to speak of something different, strange and startling. God does not come to us in ways that simply affirm what we already believe and practice as a matter of course, but God comes to us and speaks to us on God’s terms, invading and disrupting what we have known and take for granted by calling into being a new reality that we could not have foreseen or imagined” (31).

In the churches I grew up in the attitude toward scripture was, “It’s clear that it says…” but I believe that emerging churches and Barth himself would feel completely uncomfortable with such a statement that is so simple. Barth understands that as humans we cannot comprehend a wholly other and God.

As Franke quotes from Barth’s work The Word of God, he writes, “As ministers [or theologians] we ought to speak of God. We are human, however, so we cannot speak of God. We ought therefore recognize both our obligation and our inability and by that very recognition give God the glory.”

Barth: “Keep Starting over again and again and again.”
In the introduction to Brian Mclaren’s book The Church on the Other Side he writes, “If you have a new world you need a new church. We have a new world.” This single quote has gone a long way for the emerging church to continually ask fresh questions about ecclesiology and theology. No longer are the answers that we have been handed down good enough. There is freedom to question and everything is on the table. Nothing is sacred. This can be seen most clearly in the way some Emergent Leaders publicly question dearly held doctrines.

It is clear that many emerging church pastors are willing to take seriously Barth’s idea that we should be constantly starting all over again when it comes to doing dogmatics. Barth writes in CD I.II, “Everything in dogmatics is subject to questioning – except only that the dogmatician does not have to answer his own questions but those arising out of God’s revelation” (820). He writes of the need to continually listen freshly to God’s Word, “But this being the case, its only resource is to seize the weapon of continually listening. But it must listen in such a way that its whole life is put into question. It must listen in a readiness that its whole life should be assailed, convulsed, revolutionized and reshaped” (804).

While I am sure that Barth would not want to part with the necessity and importance of the Trinity for Theology, from these statements it is clear that he would be willing to sit down with Doug and listen freshly to the Word of God in regard to the matter, even if in the end he concluded the opposite.

Barth: “In all your reconstruction, keep Christ at the center.”
It is no secret that emerging churches are excellent at deconstruction. This of course can be attributed to postmodern philosophy and usually the aim of deconstruction is the “modern” culture and modern ways of doing theology and being the church.

In the book, Emerging Churches, Ryan Bolger and Eddie Gibbs point out that, “For some [emergents] this epistemological journey has led to a comprehensive deconstructionism.” Of course the danger with deconstruction is that we never reconstruct anything and that our deconstruction needs to be kingdom centered. Gibbs and Bolger write, “any non-kingdom reconstruction, after the tearing down process, will prove dehumanizing and fruitless” (46).

It is obvious that Barth did a lot of “deconstruction” in his life as he dealt with processing what it meant to be a Christian in his German culture and liberal theology. John Franke writes in his book Barth for Armchair Theologians, “for Barth, the fatal flaw in the liberal approach to theology was its limited ability to speak about God in ways that challenged the assumptions and presuppositions of a particular culture” (30). So, Barth obviously spent much time deconstructing these two things. As he did that, the thing that he kept going back to was the centrality of the scriptures and because of that the centrality of Christ as he did theology.

Ray S. Anderson writes in his book An Emerging Theology for Emerging Churches that some “emerging churches find more certainty in going back to the naïve realism of the New Testament when they claim that it is more about Christ than Christology” (45). He goes on the write that we don’t need a “Jesus only experiential theology, but rather…that the emerging church is about the contemporary presence of the historical Christ” (45).

I believe Barth would have been right on board with this critique as he understood Jesus Christ as central to his theology. Barth writes, “What ever the glory and authority of the Church may be, the glory and authority of Jesus Christ are always His own” (Volume 1.2 p.576). He also writes, “We can know that in the life of the Church, and in deed in its life with the Bible, it is a matter of this decision and act of God or rather of the actualization of the act of God which took place once and for all in Jesus Christ” (531).

From these quotes and countless others we see that in the midst of rethinking theology and dogmatics in his day (especially in opposition with liberalism) Barth kept the centrality of Jesus Christ at the forefront.

Barth: “As I go from general to particular in dogmatics, do so in leadership? That’s an interesting idea…”
In the midst of the conversation between Barth and these emerging pastors, one of them named Rod Thiestand (names have been changed to maintain anonymity) asks a particularly insightful question about Barth’s motif of “particularism” in theology and how that might relate to leadership.

Todd, oh wait, I mean Rod’s thoughts go like this: As Barth talks about the need to avoid the procrustean bed of theology by going from general to particular in theology, perhaps it is best to lead in this way as well. We start from the general in theology so as to not put God in a box that it does not call to be put in. Perhaps it would be helpful to look at leadership in this way as well. Often when leaders in churches are fashioning their church’s mission and vision they start with the particular (end point) and then find the general ways that they can get the people in their community to “buy-into” this vision and get them to mold and bend so that they will help make it come about. Perhaps a better way to approach leadership is from a general to particular approach. This would mean starting with the general gifting of the people in the community and from there fashioning and forming a particular mission statement that fits the ethos of the community rather than making people’s gifts fit into the “procrustean” mission and vision that the leader conjured up in their office or on a retreat somewhere. Alan Roxburgh has championed this form of leadership as he often talks about how the Spirit of God is at work amongst the people of God. His point is that leaders need to be listening to the gifting and passions of the congregations instead of just forcing the vision of one person on them.

I get the feeling Barth’s Particularism motif would fit well with this form of leadership.

Barth: “Why are you smoking cigars? Pipes are much better?”
Its been well known that emergent gatherings are usually accompanied by cigar smoke and good beer. Of course, it is also well documented that Karl Barth was a fan of the pipe (As seen in the image) and there was some friendly banter back and forth about how pipes are much cleaner, smell better and are higher class than cigars.

Of course, Barth likely would have been proud that the emergent pastors sitting around his table were excited about the opportunity to drink some good German beer. He would also be relieved to know that they refrained from the “cheap beer” in the states and were generally known as beer snobs.

Barth: “I hear you are reconsidering and rethinking preaching. To that I say ‘Okay, but please don’t stop preaching’.”
Many emerging-type pastors and thinkers are having some fresh discussions and asking fresh questions about preaching. Doug Pagitt’s book Preaching Re-imagined is perhaps the most well known publication about this topic. In his book The Great Giveaway, David Fitch addresses the topic of “The Myth of Expository Preaching: Why We Must Do More than Wear Scrolls on Our Foreheads.”

In this chapter, Fitch deconstructs some Evangelical views of preaching that I believe Barth would be right in line with. For example Fitch writes, “For serious folk, expository preaching means securing the Word. Often then, expository preaching cannot help but become the means to control the power associated with the authority of the Scripture for evangelical preachers and pastor-leaders” (Fitch, 128).

He also writes, “These unspoken assumptions [with expository preaching] allow the everyday parishioner to assume that through the expository method, Scripture remains in control of the preaching” (Fitch, 131). Basically, the effort is to get at the “real meaning” of the text that is true for all times and places.

I believe that Barth would have some of the same questions that Fitch is writing about in this chapter. In fact, he writes in paragraph 22 of the Church Dogmatics, “All the poverty and helplessness and confusion and impotence of Church proclamation to ourselves and others, as we think we see it in our own age and in every age; the whole sea of impure doctrine in which the Word of God seems formally to be drowned in the Church’s proclamation ; everything which might cause us to doubt the truth of the identification as we see the actual state and course of things in the Church : all these things are a reminder that this victory is not achieved self-evidently ; that it can be only a divine victory, a miracle.” (Barth, 751)

It seems clear that Barth would be very, very uncomfortable with any kind of statement that would make someone think that they could “control” the text and grasp it in a way that could be used for all times and places. As we see in this section he makes it very clear that we cannot understand the scriptures unless it is a miracle that allows us to do so.

Also, William Willimon points out that there is no pre-fabbed preaching template that Barth would have for preaching. Willimon writes, “The form of the sermon ought to be cognizant of and faithful to the form of the biblical text. There is not some previous, predetermined rhetorical pattern or form that fits all biblical texts…there is no prefabricated template for biblical preaching.”

In the midst of Barth’s encouragement for us to rethink that act of preaching in the local church, I wonder if Barth would be a little uneasy with the emerging tendency to want to throw out preaching all together. While this is not a held view by the authors in the movement, some of the ground level pastors and practitioners have espoused this as a possibility, I have heard this expressed personally in my interactions at some conferences.

If this topic were to come up at the table with Barth, I think he would choke on his beer. His statement in the Church Dogmatics says it loud and clear that he believes preaching is vastly important. He writes, “This is the critical point in the doctrine of the word of God. It is the starting point and ending point: The Word of God and the Preaching of the church.” (743)

There is no mistake that Barth put this section on preaching in the paragraph he titled “The Mission of the Church.” I think if he were to hear any talk about preaching no longer being necessary he would fight that hard and make sure that preaching stayed as a main focus of the Church.

Barth: “Guys! I love your blacked framed glasses!”
It seems that Barth, a big fan of the black plastic framed glasses, would find the fact that emergent types sitting around his table were bringing back his “retro” specs.

Two weeks ago I posted on twitter that to be an activist without actually doing anything is hypocrisy.  I was quoting a friend and I think the statement is meant to be a little overstated to make a point.  The point is this, if you are gonna get all judgmental on other for not caring for the poor then you better be doing something.  I’m not trying to be a prick or make people feel like crap.  But, its just simple common-sense.  Let your words and your deeds match up.

So, after I posted that on twitter I had a good friend write me a message and say, “So, who are you giving your time and money to? Just trying to keep you accountable to your own words bro.”

Uh. Shoot. :)

I’m thankful for my friend because my wife and I have been talking about supporting those in need with our finances some more than we already do.  Since my trip to Africa in 2009, we especially had a heart to give to a need there.  This was a good, healthy push from a good friend for us to live out that calling we have been feeling.

One of my good friends, Chris Marlow, started a non-profit org called “HELP – Help End Local Poverty.”  Their main goal is to rescue orphans, restore their hope and renew their communities.

Chris is personally connected with a local orphanage in Zimbabwe and since HELP is small, they are able to give honest-to-goodness tangible “help” to this orphanage and to the community the orphanage is in. He’s established a strong relationship with the director of the orphanage who is a pastor and a church planter.

So, HELP was a first thought for us as we began to think about supporting a need in Africa. HELP does child sponsorship much like Compassion International so I decided we would select a child together as a family.

Doing this as together was awesome. The process was so much fun for us and I believe it was important in shaping our values as a family.  I’d recommend anyone get on the HELP site, or something similar, and do this with you kids.

I introduced the idea by saying (remember i am talking to a 6 year old and a 3 year old here), “I would like us to give to others who doesn’t have as much as we do.” Once I said that, Cole (our six year old), said “Oh, I know!” and he ran out of the room into his bedroom. Melanie and I just kinda looked at each other confused about what he was doing. But, he came back with his jar of change that we marked a while back with the words, “For Others” and said, “We can give someone this!”

So, we opened up the computer and went to the HELP website where they have a list of children you can sponsor and we had Cole pick a friend to give to. I can’t tell you how much fun it was to read the stories of the kids with Cole and let him be part of the process. Cole ended up wanting to sponsor Daniel K because they are about the same age and he thinks he is cool and he likes soccer.

We told Cole that it would be $35 a month to help give Daniel food, shelter, clothing and education.  So, Cole started counting out 35 pennies.  It was awesome.  (We didn’t have the heart to tell him that he only had 35 cents…)

Now we have a Daniel K. jar on our counter. Of course, we were able to set up the support automatically through paypal and we’re not making Cole do this himself. But the jar is a reminder that we are helping give food, clothing, shelter and hope to this child.

What is so awesome is how involved Cole (and Mason as much as he could be) was in this process. We pray together on the way to school every morning and now Daniel is part of those prayers. We pray together before bed and Daniel is part of those prayers. He isn’t part of the prayers because of Melanie and I, but because Cole wants to pray for him.

I love that our kids are learning that there are people less fortunate in the world and that we can choose to live in such a way that brings them hope. The daily decisions we make really do affect how others live. I’m excited about the fact that our $35 a month is really making a difference.

The great part about HELP is that we can communicate to Daniel via e-mail through Chris and when Chris goes to Zimbabwe he’ll shoot a video for Daniel and we’re probably going to make a video for Chris to bring along.

Oh, I haven’t told my wife yet, but there is a chance we could go to Zimbabwe and meet Daniel ourselves in 2010… we’ll see how that works out.