12 Witnesses

[Please note:  I know this article is even longer than its predecessor.  If you don't want to read it all, I completely understand, but if you would skip to the concluding 1/3 of the article, you will find the overall point laid out there.  Obviously, the groundwork is important in my mind, but having become a skimmer of blogs I understand that you may not care to go that far.  If you are a member of Skelly Drive Baptist Church, particularly if you are in leadership or on a Search Committee, please try to wade through it all.  Thanks!]

I’ve decided to work through some more prolegomena* before running through the structural descriptions and illustrations.  I think this background will help with the overall picture as we progress.

Today, the subject is culture.  I think the word “culture” is often problematic because because it is accurately used in such divergent ways.  I hear and read traditionalists often use the word to refer to what the Apostle John called “the world” when he wrote:

15 Do not love the world or the things that belong to the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in him. Because everything that belongs to the world— 16 the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride in one’s lifestyle—is not from the Father, but is from the world. 17 And the world with its lust is passing away, but the one who does God’s will remains forever.   - 1 John 2:15-17 (HCSB)

Which is different from the way he uses it earlier in the chapter:

1 My little children, I am writing you these things so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father—Jesus Christ the righteous One. 2 He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not only for ours, but also for those of the whole world.    - 1 John 2:1-2 (HCSB)

Again, the use of the word “culture” in this way is not “wrong,” but it is a limited scope of the use that I will make of it.  So let me explain what culture is for our discussion.

I confess that the term was mostly abstract to me until this year.  When talking about culture, I thought of traditions and ways of doing things that are different from me.  Which is correct, but shallow.  For the greater part, I viewed culture as a matter of perspective.  You just see things a little differently than I do.  Also correct.  Kind of.

Perspective is actually more a result of culture, rather than the essence of culture.  You see things the way you do as a result of the culture into which you are immersed.  It is not the culture itself.

I didn’t really understand culture until February of this year.  In fact, unless you have had a similar experience, my description of this transformational moment may fail to help you grasp what I finally caught standing on the street in Hanoi, Vietnam.

Hanoi, like many places around the world, has a unique traffic … er … situation.  You see, the traffic in Hanoi has very little regulation.  The entirety of the city, at a population of 6.2 million (including outlying metro areas after an official merger in just a couple of weeks, which will double the official city population, according to wikipedia), has only a handful of stoplights, which have only recently been installed and to which only the majority of the population adheres, most of whom do so from the back of a scooter.  In other words, stoplights in Hanoi are just a suggestion to many, when they exist at all.

The entire flow of traffic is governed by a chaos theory that seems also to govern the flight of flocks of birds and schools of small fish that flow and turn together as both individuals and collective.  Well, it might help you to better see it in action, so here is a little YouTube video to help you get a sense of it.

I’ll follow this up with a couple of pictures I’ve produced here before of the exact same intersection:

—

Now I know that you are already thinking about my last post concerning the individual and are speculating about how I am going to say that the Missional Church needs to act in a similar fashion with the individuals in fluid motion inside the whole - all moving together to accomplish the goal.  Great thinking!

But, no.

The revelatory experience as I observed the traffic in Hanoi was about the saturating nature of culture within society.  How do you learn to drive in such an environment?  You are immersed in it.  Everyone teaches you through trial and error (hopefully not critical error) and you learn.

Here’s the big point:  Culture is something that everyone in the society agrees upon as commonly accepted behavior.  You learn it as you go because everyone in the entire society teaches it to you.  No matter where you are, if you break the boundaries of what is commonly accepted, you will be corrected by those around you.  That correction may be verbal, hostile, kind, a gesture or something else.  It may come from relative, friend or stranger.  Nevertheless, everyone in society holds everyone else accountable for their cultural standards.

The results of which are key.

It is incredibly difficult, once something is ingrained in a culture, to remove it.  Look at tobacco in America.  There has never been such a targeted campaign to rid a culture of anything that has been sustained and fueled like the campaign to rid America of tobacco.  You could count prohibition, but I would argue that the majority of influential society was not actually on board with that campaign like the support the anti-tobacco campaign has.

Nevertheless, tobacco still survives the crippling lawsuits and picks up new converts daily.

Another result of the saturation of culture, is that churches have a culture of their own, and that culture has some specific elements to the local church, but also participates in concentric and overlapping circles of culture that radiate out through the local context, denominational influences and even the churched society of America inclusive of all denominations over the last 50, 100, 350 years.  As a matter of fact, most of the “decline of the American culture” emails, rants, sermons… even songs, that I pick up on are really decrying the fact that American culture doesn’t reflect the church culture the way it once did.  It is not that American culture is dead.  We still have national values.  Those values just don’t reflect the values of the people in church.

For evidence of this, look at the recent move toward conservationism and the typical response of the evangelical community.  America values “eco-friendly” lifestyles, but the church doesn’t.  In broad terms, anyway.  Read this article on the Eco-Justice Blog for a brief example.

Now, as it relates to Missional and Institutional Church structures, there are a few consequences of church culture.  Of course, it means that the church has to work to understand the culture it is trying to reach - Breaking the Missional Code - so to speak.  That’s the easy part.  Or, at least, the point most obvious to those interested in Missionality.

The more difficult part is deciphering your own church culture, or at even getting the church to realize that it has its own culture.

Because culture is saturation, most people assume that the way they think is “normal.”  It is, for their context, but what they don’t realize is that they are a part of a commonly agreed upon system of values that has them convinced that those values are “RIGHT” and violation of those values is “WRONG.”

For those saturated in the church culture, it means that certain songs, worship styles, modes of dress, lingo and even the evaluation of staff (”working” in the office during office hours, as opposed to being in the community, for instance) becomes something that is “right” because it is what they have always seen and done.  This is most humorously and sadly seen in the comment, “We’ve never done it that way before…” in response to a desire to make a change in any process of the church.

For the individuals and the church as a whole to accept the fact that the things that they have learned from each other and held as valuable are not necessarily right but just what they are used to doing is probably the most significant yet overlooked step in getting a church and its individuals mobilized in the community.

The failure to identify church culture is a de-motivator as well as a barrier to missional engagement.  It sucks away motivation because individuals look at those outside the church as living “wrongly” and their solution is to simply tell them that they need to get into the church and live “rightly.”  This mires the church and the individual into an attractional mode, at best, and can trend to move the church and individual into a judgmental attitude.  This creates an almost impenetrable barrier between the church and its internal culture and the unchurched and their culture, with very little national or local culture to act as a common bond between them and no motivation by either to break through that barrier.

Thus, the best, first thing that a church can do is identify and then evaluate its own internal culture and see what things might need to be excised from itself.  As I mentioned with the tobacco issue in America, simply identifying the ingrained value as needing to be gone is not enough.  It takes time, teaching and will sometimes take the absence of those unwilling to see beyond their raising before the culture becomes able to embrace a new system of values.  We see this taking place in the Exodus as the adults of Israel, despite the plagues, despite the pillar of smoke/fire (glory of God’s personal presence), the protection against the armies of Egypt by the separation of the two by the pillar/presence of God still complained that they would rather be slaves.  After the Red Sea and the destruction of the Egyptian armies, they still refused to take the promised land even with God as their head, and so, ultimately, God had to allow those who were saturated with the slave culture to die off and raise up a generation who were saturated with a culture that depended daily on Him for their very provision, via manna, quail, water, etc.

Sadly, churches in transition may well have to experience similar absence of those who can not introspectively evaluate their own church culture.

Still, the first major undertaking is personal self evaluation and the comparison of that which is demanded of God to that which is normative for us as dictated by that in which we were raised.

—————————

*prolegomena - For Vicki and Tiffany, this word means “stuff you have to talk about so that the stuff you are going to talk about later makes sense.”  By defining the individual previously and culture now, it will be easier to understand the conversation about transitioning between structures later.

Who knew Systematic Theology would pay off?

I know, dear reader, that I have been woefully negligent in my blogging.  Even after I promised that I would return with passion loaded, I found myself awake at midnight on Sunday evening and not having written for the day or week ahead.  At all.

It was not a matter of not caring, either.  Rather, I found myself consumed by responsibilities in ministry, family and even simply personal.  Yet, I had one of the most profound weeks last week, in spite of its demands.

Though it is all still in process, I think I have finally adopted a Missional philosophy that I can call my own.  It’s two, four, ten and thirty years in the making, depending on your starting point of choice.  Nevertheless, it has finally gelled.

What’s more, I think that I am mostly unique in my thinking.  A long conversation, Providentially arranged, helped me to realize that my core values and theories of efficiency are moderately distinct from many other leaders in the Missional movement, though similar to a minority.

Well, more on that later in the series.

Right now I simply want to lay the foundation of the entire thought of reformatting the church structure:  The Individual.

The Missional Church is, fascinatingly, made up of missional individuals.  I know.  Shocker.

Suffice it to say that the thing that sets the Missional Church apart has to be the goal of mobilizing the individual to engage people living apart from God.

Then to address structure, the Missional church has to be one that facilitates the efficiency of individual mobilization.

The rest of the series is intended to discuss the structural details, so I will not start that here.  I will simply say that the primary issue of the shift between what I call the “Institutional Church” structure and the Missional Church structure is the removal of barriers that inhibit the personal engagement of the individual.  Ok.  More on that later.

Speaking to the issue of motivation, the Institutional church - that is the church that runs everything through the structure of the Church, from evangelism to discipleship to fellowships to worship to ministry opportunities - de-motivates its congregants with the provision of, and reliance on, the structure of the church.  The “outreach” is done (poorly) by a handful of people on a given night of the week by knocking on doors (which is unwelcome in today’s American culture) and going through a scripted presentation of the Gospel - if the people will let them in.  This creates, in the minds of everyone else, that the “outreach” is taken care of and they don’t have to particpate or even worry about it.

For the Missional church, the primary motivator for individual engagement is teaching God’s Word, which is full of the Missio Dei - the sending of God, or the Mission of God.  As Milfred Minitrea said, the church doesn’t have a mission.  It’s God’s Mission.  To make it ours is to make it small.

The combination of teaching and opportunity will, prayerfully, create engagement.  When opportunity is taken by the individual, when they participate in God’s Mission of redemption toward His creation, the experience becomes its own fuel.  How many times have you seen someone share Christ for the first time and become absolutely addicted to the experience?  How many “Mission Trips” have you seen revolutionize the lives of the teenagers who are its participants?

So I had been teaching for a while that we were all “Missionaries.”  Then it hit me one day after returning from Vietnam.  We’ve got to quit using the word, “Missionary.”   I had been with a former IMB Missionary, now heading up Northwood Church’s NGO:  Glocal Ventures, Inc.   We had discussed how, through the years, we had been taught that Missionaries were the top tier of holy servants of God.  Pastors were next, followed by secondary staff and then the deacons, Sunday School teachers, Nursery workers and various and sundry other servants in some miscellaneous hodge podge of lesser Christians.  Also, the culture there prohibited us proclaiming the “M” word as it was a barrier to us engaging those living there.

I began to think that the same word was a barrier to us here - both for those in the church (because we have “them” on an unrealistic pedestal) as well as those out of it (because of its “churchified” lingo).

So, one day I announced that we weren’t going to call ourselves “Missionaries” any more, even though I had been saying that we would for about a year.  Rather, I said, we will now call ourselves “servant messengers.”  The sermon, as you might surmize, was on the value of serving people as a door to personal engagement.

Afterward, one of our senior adult ladies came up to me and said, “You know, Pastor, you kept saying that we should all consider ourselves as missionaries, and I just couldn’t picture myself like that.  But then today you said that we were servant messengers and I thought, ‘Now I can do that!’”

I wish I could tell you all of the stories of people who are beginning to engage the world around them.  I’ve already made this article longer than it should be, so I won’t.  Let me just say that the reason I couldn’t sleep is because I got a call at 9:10 pm tonight telling me of how one of our Youth Workers saw some Hispanic kids playing soccer on our church grounds tonight and, prompted by the Holy Spirit, she walked over and started talking to them, shaped the conversation toward God and shared the Gospel.  She also invited them to participate in some of our stuff and told them that they were welcome any time.  Of course, we are not stopping there in God’s pursuit of them, but the point is she saw the oppotunity and, following the Holy Spirit, she let God use her in His Mission.

Structurally speaking, we have not really made any changes yet.  Two years in, and we are just getting started, but at least in theory, I think I understand where we are going.  As I said before, more on that later.  Nevertheless, the motivation is taking root and God is on the move.

With deference to the prolific memorable dialog from Doc Holiday in Tombstone, I have a new movie quote from a movie not widely viewed, but which I have come to enjoy.

The movie is “Stranger Than Fiction” and it follows IRS agent Harold Crick as he begins to hear the narration of his life by author Karen Eiffel, though she is unknown to him at the time. This isn’t a review - I may do that some other time - but just to set up this long quote by the author at the end of the movie.  It turns out the author is writing a novel and has writer’s block.  She’s been writing this book for ten years.  It so happens that the narrative of her story is the narrative of Harold’s life.

That narrative revolves around Harold’s drab existence that blossoms into love: for life, for his only friend and for Miss Pascal - a lady, very different from himself, whom he is auditing - as Eiffel struggles to end her book. And the story is about Harold’s watch, which is ignored by Harold but is anthropomorphic and becomes its own character. The hitch is that the book she is writing, the narrative of Harold Crick’s existence, is fictional in her mind, but is actually the very real narrative of Harold’s life.  And thoughts.  And feelings.  And she kills people.  And Harold, struggling with the already disconcerting experience of hearing his life narrated in his head then hears the line, “Little did he know that this seemingly innocuous act would lead to his immanent death.”

At this point, he gets quite concerned.

As I mentioned, Eiffel has been in a ten year writer’s block, but her previous books all end with the death of the central character, hence, she is struggling to find a way to kill Harold. Harold begins a frantic search to find her so that he can stop her from killing him and their worlds collide, creating a moral crises. Apparently the book is no longer just a work of fiction as it seems to govern Harold’s existence.

It is a well written movie, which is why I have decided that I like it, and filled with stars like, Will Ferrell (Harold), Maggie Gyllenhaal (Ana Pascal), Dustin Hoffman (Prof. Hilbert), Emma Thompson (Karen Eiffel) and Queen Latifah (Penny Escher). And there are more. The two guys from those Sonic commercials are IRS agents. Very well cast and funny for those who enjoy dry wit.

Anyway, the movie deals with the issue of free will and destiny, albeit not from a theological perspective. As such, some parts fascinate me as to the imprint of God’s presence on the world. Here is the final quote from Karen Eiffel after she relents from killing Harold who, instead of dying, is critically injured saving the life of a child. I guess I wrote a review after all. It’s a long quote that makes even more sense in the movie, but I think you might enjoy it.

As Harold took a bite of Bavarian Sugar Cookie, he finally felt as if everything was going to be “ok.”

Sometimes, when we lose ourselves in fear and despair, in routine and constancy, in hopelessness and tragedy, we can thank God for Bavarian Sugar Cookies.

And fortunately, when there aren’t any cookies we can still find reassurance in a familiar hand on our skin.

Or a kind and loving gesture.

Or a subtle encouragement.

Or a loving embrace.

Or an offer of comfort.

Not to mention…

Hospital gurneys.

And nose plugs.

And uneaten danish.

And soft spoken secrets.

And Fender Stratocasters.

And, maybe, the occasional piece of fiction.

And we must remember that all these things, the nuances, the anomalies, the subtleties, which we assume only accessorize our days are, in fact, here for a much larger and nobler cause.

They are here to save our lives.

I know the idea seems strange. But I also know that it just so happens to be true.

And so it was a wristwatch saved Harold Crick.

Romans 8:28 - And we know that in all things God works to the good of them who love Him,who have been called according to His purpose.

Speaking to a conference hosted by the New Yorker, Malcolm Gladwell speaks to the issue of hiring the right people.  More specifically, he talks about the tools we use to evaluate the future success of candidates and how those tools are often the worst ones to use.  It’s fascinating to see how poorly we evaluate people for future success.

Reinventing Invention: Online Only Video: The New Yorker

What tools do you think we use that are poor indicators of future success?

I’ve heard it argued that to vote one’s Christian convictions, especially this year, the vote must not be cast for either of the two major party candidates that appear to have finally sewn up their party’s nomination.  We think.

The argument, as recently posted by my friend Micah Fries, goes that to pick the lesser of two evils, which McCain and Obama are supposed to be, then you have to choose “evil.”  Therefore, vote your convictions and let the chips fall where they may.

I would like to humbly challenge this thought process.

The conclusion above assumes that avoiding the election of someone that would lead us away from my overall convictions is a choice that leads to me not voting my true convictions.  In fact, to avoid leadership that would, in my opinion, shipwreck our nation is a very firm conviction of mine.

In America’s not too distant history, we have precisely two perfect examples of people voting for third party candidates in order to “vote their convictions” - one to the Republicans and one to the Democrats.

In 1992, H. Ross Perot ran as a candidate for President against George H. W. Bush, the incumbent, and William Jefferson Clinton.  While both parties hemorrhaged disenchanted voters to Perot, the Republicans were the greatest loser.  As a result, though Bill Clinton did not even receive a majority of the popular vote, the electoral college swung his way and the Republicans endured the Democrats’ most beloved leader since JFK, the “Teflon Don” of Presidential politics, Bill Clinton, who was re-elected and served for 8 years.

In 2000, Ralph Nader eschewed calls from the Democrats to step aside.  Rather, much like Perot, and like the “lesser of two evils” argument, Nader declared that both candidates, George W. Bush and Al Gore were so similar that the difference was negligible.  This was a Green Party slap in the face to Al Gore, who claimed to represent the Environmental interests.  It turns out, that Nader was probably right.  At least in evaluating Bush’s and Gore’s personal commitment to the environment, it is well documented that Bush’s ranch in Texas is a model of “earth friendly” efficiency, while Gore’s is an energy hog and burns natural gas at a rate of 12 times that of his neighbors, while only having a house 4 times as large - documented on Snopes.

What is my point with all of that?  Apparently, the environmentalists, at least enough of them, agreed with Nader and voted for him.  George W. Bush, though losing the popular vote, won the boondogle court case in Florida and the Supreme Court of the United States and the electoral college that goes with it.

What are the results of these two turns?

Many, but most tangible are the appointments to the Supreme Court.  Bill Clinton:  Ginsburg and Dreyer.  George W. Bush:  Chief Justice Roberts and Alito.

And here we are again.

A report from the Boston Globe documents the speculation that at least one if not three justices are on the verge of retiring.  It also documents that the court is very definitely split between two groups of 4 right leaning and 4 left leaning justices, with Justice Kennedy often now the swing vote.

There are justices in both “camps” that are possible retirees.

All of this is to say, whoever wins the election will most likely control the court and it will swing one way or the other.

Oh, and the Globe also reports that Obama is promising to appoint justices with a “broader social outlook” and McCain is promising to appoint justices more int he model of new Chief Justice John Roberts.

This is not to mention the vast number of vacancies on lesser Federal Benches that the left leaning Congress has declined fill, delaying the nominees of President Bush in hopes of replacing him with a more liberal President that will nominate men and women to fill the gaps in a way that will suit them better.  The lower courts are backed up to the point of violating the Constitutional right to a speedy trial and the Congress can’t hold out another four to eight years.  Allow the election of the wrong President, and they won’t have to wait.

I humbly submit to you that I will be voting for a major party candidate this year and will not hesitate to “vote my convictions” - even if he is not the one I would have chosen a year ago.  My convictions are that we return the our courts to their conservative roots and not have justices that legislate from the bench.  Presidents and Congressmen come and go, but the courts last for decades.

It is one of the hardest things to explain. Especially to grieving families. Can you assure them their child is in Heaven. I have always attempted to do so, though I often admitted that my Scriptural validation for my belief was more or less founded in the goodness of God and His mercy.

The alternative is the cobbled together and poorly thought out, completely un-Scriptural “doctrines” such as the “age of accountability.”

Recently, Drs. Danny Akin and Al Mohler, Seminary Presidents of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, respectively, have produced a series of concise arguments from Scripture to lend a sense of affirmation to the belief that infants that die go to Heaven.

Between The Times|Why We Believe Children Who Die Go to Heaven

While some of the arguments edge quite close to the “age of accountability” thought process, though not crossing the line, some are better. Such as David’s sense of confidence in seeing his lost infant son again, and the vast multitudes of saints in Heaven that appear to possibly outnumber those that have lived to adulthood in service to the Lord.

If you’ve ever struggled with the loss of a child, this article should bring some sense of comfort to you.

How many times have I heard Ed Stetzer and others say that we need to exegete culture? Many, I assure you. Let me also assure you that I am not against exegeting culture. I’m for it.

But how far? How much culture can we truly decipher before we are spending all of our time trying to figure out minutiae? What about culture that moves quickly? Too much time studying a trend and it is out of style before you can apply anything relevant.

Best example: When I moved from rural Kentucky to Charlotte, NC (still in Youth Ministry) I went up to some of my older guys and said, “What up, dog?” They burst out laughing and one of them literally took me by the shoulders and said: “Never again. Ok? Never again.”

Relevant in Kentucky, way past relevant in Charlotte. A little trend that I had failed to grasp well had done much to convince my teenagers that, while I loved them, I knew little of their world.

And then there is the whole postmodern aspect to trends. What they mean to you, what they were originally intended to mean, is not what they mean to many who are participants in them.

I remember when the Lance Armstrong LiveStrong yellow armbands came out. I had a teenaged girl in my Youth Group who showed up one Wednesday night wearing one. Thinking that I would find a point of relationship with her, since my family has been rife with cancer, I approached her and asked who she knew that struggled with cancer.

Blink. Blink. Dumbfounded look.

“The LiveStrong bracelet?”

More blinking.

*sigh*

Foiled again.

So at what level and to what degree do you pay attention to trends? Enough, but not too much?

As usual, Ed was his normal, million words a second, self depricating, funny and pointed self.

You can read the outlines from Timmy Brister here:  Part 1 and Part 2.

Of course, Ed is a church planting guru of sorts, so it makes sense to have him at this meeting.  Well, it makes sense to me, given the topic of the meeting.  Ed joked that there were folks who were giving Tom heat for having “Ed Stetzer” in to speak and then assured everyone that he had received similar comments from others (others who happened to invite him to speak at Liberty University) for going.  Tom laughed out loud at the Liberty Reference.  If you don’t know the history there, we’ll have to save it for some other day.

Concerning church planting, I don’t know that Ed said much that I haven’t heard before.  He was typical Stetzer, blitzing away with jokes and daggers to the heart at a speed that rivaled, I have to believe, even Timmy Brister’s typing speed.  If you didn’t know, TB can type like a bazillion words a minute, but I’m sure Ed made him work during both sessions.

Ed asked me today if last night’s session was prophetic or pathetic.  I wanted to say, “Do you ever speak in the non-prophetic voice?”  Instead, I simply assured him it was good.

I’ve never heard him fail to be prophetic, but he gets away with it so much because he is so quick to point out his own deficiencies as well.

And he was prophetic to the Founders Conference as well.

Gently, he pointed out that not all of his reformed friends were as passionate as God about the planting of churches, and that if there were any in the room, then he called them to repent.  A little church discipline, on the spot.  This drew a chuckle, but I suspect the chuckle covered a groan as the comment cut to the point.

Which is precisely why Tom Ascol wanted him at the Founder’s Conference.

Aside from being in my backyard, two things drew me to the conference.  1) It was about church planting and church restoration, and 2) The speakers, primarily Ed Stetzer and Voddie Baucham.

It helped that it also only cost me $60 + gas for the daily trips.  The gas was probably more than the registration.

Anyway, it was worth the money.

I think I am going brain dead.  I’ve been writing “Founders” as “Founder’s” which is singular possessive instead of simply plural.  Just for those particularists out there who saw it.  I, too, saw it.  In my mind’s eye.  Last night.  Laying in bed.  Trying to sleep.

I did manage to overcome my obsessive compulsive nature and go on to sleep.  I got up first thing this morning and fixed it, though.  Small steps.  I know.

Anyway, Bonnie’s not feeling great, so I am going to make the second part of Ed Stetzer’s presentation today and then come home.  I’ll write from home this afternoon covering both of Ed’s talks and then also contribute another post that doesn’t relate to the conference so much.

Here’s a quote from the Washington Post Article:

The study detailed Americans’ deep and broad religiosity, finding that 92 percent believe in God or a universal spirit — including one in five of those who call themselves atheists. More than half of Americans polled pray at least once a day.

This is what comes when attending church becomes the culture instead of the Church shaping the culture via the proclamation of the Gospel which results in the salvation and then sanctification of the lost.

Read the whole thing here: Most Americans Believe in Higher Power, Poll Finds