Yet, on the authority of God’s Word, and our own Church, I must repeat the question, “Hast thou received the Holy Ghost?” If thou hast not, thou art not yet a Christian. (From Sermon 3: Awake Thou Sleeper)

As I read through John Wesley's sermons I am amazed at how often he defined a Christian as one who has received the Holy Spirit. He was not ashamed of his view and this view would get him in hot water from time to time.

In some of his sermons he went as far as to say that even though you might act like a Christian, look like a Christian, or even smell like a Christian, if you had not received the Holy Spirit then you were not.

He didn't care if you had been attending a church your whole life, or if you fed the hungry and clothed the naked, or even if you were clergy. He even said that he was an "almost Christian" for years.

How many of us and our memebers would Wesley consider 'Almost Christians'? As I reflect on Wesley's definition, it causes me to wonder if perhaps the greatest need for the Methodist church today is for us to preach conversion to the church members (including the clergy).

Wesley's fear wasn't that Methodism would cease to exist, but that it would have the form of religion and lack the power. Our fear of Methodism is that we cease to exist. Perhaps it is time for us to concentrate more on the power of religion (the Holy Spirit empowering the life of love), rather than the form.

Ben Witherington has posted an article explaining a bit about General Conference (which is meeting as I write this). He discusses some of the issues that will be addressed. Perhaps the most important issue is the proposal to create a central conference in the US. This proposal says that US concerns would be addressed in the US central conference. Is this important? yes. Why? Actually there are several reasons. Ben Witherington discusses, in my opinion, the most important one noting that the central conferences currently provide a balancing to the American church. He writes:

For another thing, they provide something of a theological and ethical balance to the American church which is too subject to the major cultural shifts in North America, often at the expense of the Gospel and the Bible's teachings. We not only need the two-thirds worlds voices at General Conference, we need their wisdom and votes as well. In an age when our church, and indeed most major denominations, are becoming more culturally inclusive and global in character, it sends the wrong signal entirely to not allow the Central Conferences to continue to participate fully and vote quadrennially with the rest of our church.

If this goes through, I believe the face of American Methodism will drastically change. Many of the 'hot issues' of the American church are seen as unbiblical overseas. Without the overseas conferences, it is difficult knowing what will happen here in the U. S. The proposal discusses that "U. S. Concerns" will be dealt with in the U. S. central conference. I've always believed scripture and Christianity are globally focused. It seems to me that by moving in this direction we could allow our expression of Christianity to be more culturally defined than what it already is.

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.

Our Annual Conference (annual meeting of United Methodists for a conference) begins tomorrow. I usually have a sense of tension when I go. I do want to be a part of what is happening and even want to be a part of change and transformation, yet, as I read through the reports and go through the meetings I just get frustrated.

This year, I'm sure, my frustration level will be even higher. This year we have to vote for delegates to go to General and Jurisdictional conference. So, if there are any pastors or lay people who have a power complex, this is where it can come into play. I've been getting emails and letters telling me who I should support for these important events.

It reminds me of the scene out of the Fellowship of the Rings when they were trying to decide who was going to take the ring to Mordor to destroy it. As the ring (of power) was in the center of the circle, all those around started fighting over who should be the bearer of the ring. Now, it hasn't gotten that bad, but there has been positioning and such. I've asked to be a part of various 'teams' to get the 'right' people 'voted in.' I really don't like it.

Perhaps my frustration and disconect with all of this is my belief that transformation will not happen from the 'powers that be' but rather from the individuals within the local churches. Yes, I want to be a part of change on the conference level...but who is the conference? Isn't it more important to work for change at the local church level where people are living, working, loving and dying?

Hopefully I can have a good attitude through it all. Hopefully I can see God's hand working even through this process of religious politics. Hopefully men and women who are fully following God, reading Scripture, praying and listening to God will be voted to go represent our conference. Hopefully, at General conference God will move and we will all be changed.

<a href="http://technorati.com/claim/ky6sqerstd" rel="me">Technorati Profile</a>

I keep forgetting that in a church there are various types of individuals. There are some, who seeing the church as they would any other organization, will take part in its programs, its committees and other activities even though, they don't understand the deeper issues of being sent or that Jesus calls them. There are others who come out of a sense of history because it is what they have always done. They don't always understand why they are there or what part they play.

Perhaps the trick is to find those people who have been touched and transformed by Jesus and who still have their hearts open and receptive to what he is wanting to to through them and understand that. If you can get those folks together it would be powerful.

Of course, the other side of this is to discover ways to draw all in the church to a deeper relationship with Jesus so they will begin to understand their part in the kingdom of God.

I am being more and more convinced that the best route for the UMC would be to do two things: 1) Get rid of membership. 2) Stop asking for church statistics.

I write these things because I believe if we stopped doing those two things, we would have to revisit what it means to be a church. If we stopped doing those two things, I believe panic would ensue because it would signify that things "are different." Then, we would have to catch our breath, step back, and figure out what God is wanting us to be about.

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.

Tallahassee Democrat | 08/20/2005 | Hope renewed

Yes, there is (or there can be) hope for us UMs, but it will take courage. It will take courage for us to look around at the "new situation" we find ourselves in. It will take courage to ask difficult questions, including "What kind of church (or denomination) do we want to be? It will take courage to reach out people we don't know in a land we are unsure of (even though we have been living here a very long time.

I found this newspaper article about a church that, it sounds like, is vernturing out with courage. The article is here (unless the newspaper takes off the link at some point). It is about New Life UMC in Florida. Because of (it sounds like) a nasty situation, it is forced to basically start fresh, yet, there are issues that an established church has that a new start doesn't.

It is a hopeful article and I pray that you too find hope in it.

Here's my top 10 list on why are we dying?

I'm sure there are others....

10) Because we believe salvation is within our walls.
9) Because we are so busy with our own "stuff"
8) Because we have no idea what we are doing and we stopped being a long time ago.
7) Because we don't really understand (or care to understand) what is going on with the people around us.
6) Because ministry is what is done to us (rather than what we can do for the others)
5) Because in all our breadth, we have forgotten our depth.
4) Because we don't know how to be neighbors to the strangers.
3) Because we like the good gig we've got going.
2) Because mission is somewhere out there, not somewhere right here.

and the top 1 reason on why we are dying....

1) Because we seek to not die and thus never really live.

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.