Just read the first chapter of Tony Jones' new book, The New Christians. I don't have the book. The chapter I read was free on the internet. I requested a copy from Tony to review on Missional Methodist Movement website, but as of now, I haven't received it. I mention that because I want to be fair and also I have no idea where he is heading after the first chapter.

I thought Tony had a lot of good insights into the current issues with the church, religion and spirituality. I find myself leaning more toward missional and/or the emergent side of things, so I will probably agree with much of what Tony has in his book. However, there is one area that I think needs to be explored more in the emergent and missional movements. That are is the area of holiness.

It has taken me about 20 years to come to terms with holiness. I am a UMC pastor and the father of our denomination is John Wesley who had a lot to say about holiness. For a long time I ignored what he had to say and I don't think I am alone in that. I ignored it because holiness always seemed like it was based on rules and regulations and I certainly didn't want to follow the path that other holiness movement folks did.

Tony Jone, while discussing some of the problems facing churches writes:

The evidence is in: millions of individuals ‘‘inviting Jesus Christ into their hearts as their personal Lord and Savior’’ at megachurches and Billy Graham crusades has done little to stem the moral dissolution of America. And ironically,it’s the very individualism engendered by evangelicalism that has resulted inthis predicament. The primary emphasis of evangelicalism is the conversion of the individual, but that emphasis has also handicapped evangelicals in their attempts to tackle systemic issues like racism and poverty and thus has left themopen to manipulation by political forces.

Tony's point is well taken. The church is very individualistic (which I hate, but struggle to break away from). It also has seemed to be pretty inept in the way of social change. But, is that because of the emphasis on individual conversion?

Later he writes:

The church that doesn’tchallenge its members to face the core ethical issues that confront themevery day at work is the church that has abdicated its responsibility. Many churches, particularly evangelical ones, make this mistake, and here’s why:too many evangelical churches have emphasized the vertical, just-me-and-Jesus relationship to the exclusion of the horizontal relationships with other human beings and with all of creation.In fact, a major study in the 1990s showed that the individualism inherent in American evangelicalism is directly responsible for evangelicals’ inability to diagnose and solve systemic social issues like racism and abortion. In other words, the formula for evangelical growth—namely,individual conversion—also precludes many evangelical churches from affecting the very changes that rally its members. So when I asked about the chickens,it was a theological non sequitur to the middle managers; as long as their relationship with Jesus was all right, everything else would take care of itself.

You will have to read the chapter to see why he asks about the chickens.

I agree with Tony on the problem, but I don't think it is because of the focus on conversion. I believe the issue is we have separated justification from regeneration...which John Wesley wouldn't do. Basically if your sins were forgiven, God's power also came in and created, in you, a new creation. Wesley's expectation from those who were forgiven from their sins were they would also be saved from the power of their sins.

Holiness, for Wesley, was the standard way of life for a Christian, however, while we have kept the focus on forgiveness, we have neglected holiness. It is holiness that is missing today and holiness would transform the Church. We already have an example of what a focus on conversion and holiness brings....just look at the Wesleyan revivals under the Wesleys. They literally transformed life in England. Not just the spiritual life, but also the social life. [edit: If we receive the mind of Christ as Wesley contends, then it makes sense that our agendas would reflect the will of God. This results in the outward focus of, as N. T. Wright says, "putting things back to rights." ]

I was planning on writing some more about holiness (which I still plan on doing), but I thought it was interesting that Jone's doesn't seem even to bring it up...instead he seems to imply that we can address these social issues in some other way. Again, I lean toward the emergent/missional way. I believe emergent/missional is the best way to live out the life of the Gospel in our current culture, so I interested to read what else Jones has to say.

Web 2.0 Show - Episode 8 - Tara Hunt

That is what was said in an interview on the Web 2.0 show. I know a show about the web, isn't about the church, yet, it seems, like businesses see trends in society before the church notices them.

The comment causes me to think of postmodernism and their focus on small or communities. Big isn't seen as being better any longer. During the interview Tara Hunt, they talked about how smaller organizations were better able to make changes (being agile) and how they were better able to work with the community.

Now, the questions I have is: how does all of this relate to the church? Does it? Could the church be better served if those of us in smaller church (not megachurches) see our size as an assest rather than working to become what we are not?

Missional Church - LifeWiki

Ah....Now this is more like it. A pretty good start on the definition of a missional church. Now...how does one transform from a from a traditional 100+ denominational church into a missional church?

Subversive Influence » Rick Warren and the PDL Cathedral of Comparisons

Ah...I read the quote referred to about a week ago in Christianity Today and thought Warren's metaphor using the computer was a bit uninformed. I just put it off as someone in one discipline trying to use a metaphor from another discipline that he really doesn't understand.

For one, not all computers use Intel. In fact, fewer and fewer do. Also, Windows is not the only Operating System and I sure wouldn't want to say I was the "windows system for the 21st century" like Warren did. I would hope we would have a bit higher standards especially after Microsoft finally realizes (or admits) Windows is really broken.

Maynard is right on target comparing the traditional model church with Microsoft and the ermegent church with Open Source though. In fact, I've felt for a few years that the Open Source model could perhaps help us in the church figure some issues out.

Open Source is about distributive computing and creating. Open Source development needs people who know what's going on and people who can actually do the work.

The traditional model doesn't work that way. Basically, you have one entity (could be a pastor or "The Staff (tm)" who calls the shots. They tell "The Others (tm)" what to do. As long as "The Staff (tm)" know what their doing and "The Others" follow along everything is alright. It bcomes a top-down organization which worked in the past, but, isn't really geared for the present or the future.

The problem, I see, in the top-down model is, "The Others (tm)" never really get to experience ministry first hand. Sure, they are followers, but they really aren't experiencing the full move of God in their lives. While they may do what the leaders tell them to do, the experience is top-down (Although I should compare top-down to Top-down)

I've often wonder how we can have UM churches that have people who have been a part of it for years and decades, yet, they are unequiped to really do ministry. Sure, they might paint a building or two over the years, or give money, or work with kids at VBS, but really, do their day to day lives reflect a ministry or missional mindset.

There are some and, thank God for them, who have been able to rise above and discover God's call on their lives. They are not Purpose-Driven (tm), but rather Spirit led. God moves in their lives. They know what they're about.

Perhaps I'm just ranting and I'm sure I've gotten off topic. The bottom line is this: I believe we, as the church, have stopped equiping and empowering Christians to make a difference in the world in which they live. Instead we have created followers of programs.

If there isn't a DVD or book, or training involved, we don't know what to do. We have forgotten how to listen for God's Spirit moving in our lives. We study our Bibles, but do we allow God to speak through them?

There are some connections between Open Source software development vs. Traditional (read Microsoft) software development and the Emergent Church vs. Traditional Church. Perhaps I can flesh that out some more. The thing to remember is Microsoft is finding out the old software model doesn't work. We, in the church, are discovering the old model doesn't work. Yet, just as it is very difficult for Microsoft to change, so it is for us.

Link to the PDF file.

Here McLaren tries, to share his background and biography as he moved to emergent. Of course many might already have seen this, but I post it for those who come here from non-emergent backgrounds...

"Yes, post-Protestant churches see everything as spiritual formation -- everything worth doing, that is. Public worship is an exercise in group spiritual formation through rituals like the Eucharist and preaching. Fellowship is exercise in the spiritual practices of community. The success of a church isn't measured by the numbers who attend but by the formation of people as agents of the Kingdom of God..." - Brian McLaren's - The Last Word and the Word after That

As I read this I realized how much I agreed with it. I also realized it is how I approach ministry and ecclesiology. I am also realizing that it is different from how others "do" church. There's the rub.

Perhaps that is why I'm so turned off by the programmatic influence of church growth formulas. It is perhaps why I am so tired by ministry conferences that continue to say the same thing in different ways hoping that pastors, starving for validation, appreciation and recognition, continue to spend $$ and (more importantly time) to travel to the conferences to learn about the next big thing (NBT) that will transform their church, their ministries and their lives.

Ah...to be able to sit back, bask in God's glory, experience his presence and know that He is God (Psalm 46:10)

Well, I kept hearing about podcasting so I'd thought I'd check it out. I understand the concept, yet, on dialup it isn't as easy. To make a long story shorter, I was finally able to figure out a way to automatically dial the internet (after midnight) to download a 15 meg podcast. The dialing up was automatic, but I had to manually tell the program what file to download...

Anyway, my first podcast was by Alan Hartung. One of the comments I found interesting was his discussion on church structure. Basically (and I hope I am doing him justice), he said that if your church is still structured around a weekly meeting, you might have some emeregent style changes, but basically your structure remains the same as most churches.

It is easy to say, "We are radical", but if most of your resources are used by the one weekly meeting, then you are functioning like most other churches (emergent and non-emergent). He had some other comments about this, but you will have to listen yourself.

This topic is one thing with which I struggle. I believe that the church needs to re-evaluate itself, but it seems like the weekly meeting is off limits. After all, the weekly meeting is our life blood. It is where we believe people 'become' followers of Christ, it is where we 'believe' we disciple others, it is where we believe people should come after our evangelistic efforts. However, it could be that our focus on the weekly meeting is creating followers whose lives focus on that weekly meeting and not the daily days they are living.

As I struggle with this, I have no idea what should take place of that weekly meeting, or what kind of model would work in its place.

He also had some comments about the sermon's place in this new world, but that is a topic for another time....

Phil Goodacre saw Andrew Jones do a teaching in the UK. He has posted his notes on the talk. There's quite a bit to think about in his post. Some of my favorite things are:

We then moved on to look at Luke 10, from which I noted down a number of things that grabbed me.

We are told to enter other people's houses, rather than us dragging them into ours. What does this say about the way we do mission, and the way we do church???

God HAS prepared a harvest. The harvest IS out there. We must learn to find where God's favour is.

The 72 were told to go out, eat, drink, heal etc etc. THEN tell people about the Kingdom of God. Is this the way we do it? Or are we often in a hurry to get all the 'God stuff' in right at the beginning. People need to experience the Kingdom of God before we start banging on about it verbally.

A definition of ministry was presented that seems so simple, but is really quite profound:
1. giving gifts
2. telling stories
3. throwing parties
4. making friends
[philgoodacre.blogspot]

I just love the definition of ministry. However, I realize I only do one of those things well! I do have some work to do.

What is odd, is that even though I resonate with the emerging church and such, I'm a product of a modern church institution. I'm finding I want to learn some 'new' lessons while feeling some 'pangs' of guilt of moving away from the established way of doing things. I figure at some time the church I serve will figure this out too (I think some of them already have).

A case in point: My wife and I were discussing our VBS which is coming up. She asked the question, "Why do we do VBS?" It was a good question because I realized I really didn't have a good answer for it. The 'real' answer was, "Well, VBS is what churches do in the summer time. It is what we must do as a church to be considered to be a legitimate church." Hmm...I'm finding that I'm driven to do a lot so I can feel like I am a legitimate pastor and serve a legitimate church. I want to stop it....being legitimate that is.....

Here's a link about a teaching by Andrew Jones. It looked pretty interesting but I don't have time to read through all of it now. Perhaps I will reflect later ;)

Now...back to vacation.

I have no idea how others are able to post to their blogs while on vacation.
Right now, I finally have a few moments and thought I'd try a post during
my vacation. It seems like a geeky thing to do. Also, if all works well, I'll
have wireless access my last day of vacation and I can do a post via my
Tunsten handheld.

After reading some blogs this week (I've been able to keep up with some of
the blogs I read because of my wireless Tunsten), I've begin to think of
'culture' as it relates to established traditional churches. There are some
who are diving deep into various cultures to try to understand the mindset
so they can be missional. What if, the establish traditional (or even not so
traditional) churches need the same missional reach. After all, many
established churches have been around for a long time and they have their
own culture; a culture that has become ingrown. The question for me is,
how does one infiltrate and effect this culture? It is a culture that has
taken decades to create. It isn't going to disappear over night.

One of my fears is, those who are more missional in nature, will choose to
leave these churches because the culture is so quasi-christian, that those
within the culture can convince themselves they are doing the work of God
and so they have no motivation to change.

My hope and prayer is that various missional minded pastors will begin to
see the churches they serve in a new light and begin the difficult task of
reaching the established traditional church so that they might become a
missional community doing the Kingdom work of God.