L.D. Turner
If you are a heavy reader like I am, you will fully understand what I mean when I say that I recently read one of “those books.” One of “those books” is a book that I needed to read at exactly the time that I read it. The Holy Spirit, knowing me better than I know myself, put this book in my path at just the right time, then opened my heart and mind to the message contained within its pages. As a result, I came away from my experience with that book a changed person.
The book I am speaking of is Robin Meyer’s “Saving Jesus from the Church.” The sub-title is even more telling: “How to Stop Worshipping Christ and Start Following Jesus.” If that doesn’t grab your interest, perhaps the picture on the cover will. It is a head shot of Jesus with eyes almost closed and a strip of duct tape across his mouth. Given the book’s title and cover, I expected that this just might be a book that would both challenge me and, at the same time, make me think. Meyers delivered and delivered well on both counts.
A professor of philosophy at Oklahoma City University, Meyers is also a nationally syndicated columnist and pastor of Mayflower Congregational Church. In the book, the author explores a variety of themes that I find highly pertinent to the survival of the Christian faith. A self-proclaimed liberal, certainly much of what Meyers has to say will sit side-saddle in the mouths of those of a fundamentalist bent. Although there are several key points where I part company with the liberal wing of the faith, I can say the same about the more conservative side of Christianity as well. For these reasons, I have learned to have an open mind and perhaps it is also for these reasons that I find a book like this one so stimulating and thought-provoking.
I should also say at this point that this is not a standard “book review” or anything like that. Instead, it is just what it actually is – a blog entry. I hope, however, to be able to give my readers at least a glimpse of the importance of Meyers’ book and perhaps whet their appetites enough to motivate them to read the book and reflect on its content. I will do this by sharing several lengthy quotations from Meyers’ book, the first from near the front and the final one from the epilogue. I have selected these quotations because I think they give a generally vivid picture of Meyers’ take on the problems the contemporary Christian faith faces and possible solutions to those problems.
Near the beginning of the book (on page 10 actually) Meyers throws down the gauntlet:
“In the beginning, the call of God was not propositional. It was experiential. It was as palpable as wine and wineskins, lost coins and frightened servants, corrupting leaven and a tearful father. Now we argue over the Trinity, the true identity of the beast in the book of Revelation, and the exact number of people who will make it into heaven. Students who once learned by following the teacher became true believers who confuse certainty with faith.”
“We have a sacred story that has been stolen from us, and in our time, the thief is what passes for orthodoxy itself (right belief instead of right worship). Arguing over the metaphysics of Christ only divides us. But agreeing to follow the essential teachings of Jesus could unite us. We could become imitators, not believers.”
“Two roads that ‘diverged in a yellow wood’ so long ago looked equally fair, but now one is well worn. It is the road of the Fall and redemption, original sin, and the Savior. The other is the road of enlightenment, wisdom, creation-centered spirituality, and a nearly forgotten object of discipleship: transformation. This is the road less traveled. It seeks not to save our souls, but rather to restore them.”
If you have followed this blog for any length of time or read my writings in other venues, you should be well aware of my feelings about the whole “Fall-Redemption/Original Sin/Blood Sacrifice/Atonement” schemata and all that travels in its wake. Along with the whole “Faith vs. Works” issue, these doctrines have ripped the very guts out of the true gospel and have made transformational Christianity virtually impossible. I won’t go into that diatribe right now, for this is not the time nor the place. Suffice to say, Meyers is of the same opinion and fortunately, so are an increasing number of thoughtful followers of Christ.
Meyers goes on to say that if the church is to find healing, it must go back to that fork in the road and, as did Robert Frost, take the road less traveled. To do otherwise would be a betrayal of the very heart of the faith. According to Meyers, we must go beyond the attempts to maintain the status quo on the one hand, and the quest to “demythologize Jesus” on the other. Instead, our task is to:
“…let the breath of the Galilean sage fall on the neck of the church again. First, we have to listen not to formulas of salvation but to a gospel that is all but forgotten. After centuries of being told that “Jesus saves,” the time has come to save Jesus from the church….If any priest tells us we cannot sing this new son, we will sing it louder, invite others to sing it with us, and raise our voices in unison across all the boundaries of human existence – until this joyful chorus is heard in every corner of the world, and the church itself is raised from the dead.”
To be continued……
© L.D. Turner 2011/All Rights Reserved
Showing posts with label Church. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Church. Show all posts
Friday, May 27, 2011
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Renewing the Kingdom Calling (Part One)
Jesus opened his earthly mission with an announcement regarding the Kingdom of Heaven. He went on to speak of the kingdom repeatedly and let it be known in clear and concise ways that this whole notion of “kingdom” was the core of his mission. In addition, he passed on that mission to us. Just as Christ stressed the importance of the establishment of the kingdom “on earth as it is in heaven,” so too are we to do everything in our power to lay the foundations for his kingdom rule.
The overriding problem is this: We haven’t done a very good job at carrying out this mission.
As individual members of the Body of Christ, it is our duty to share the kingdom message at every opportunity. In doing so, however, we must take care to present Jesus’ kingdom manifesto in ways that are relative to today’s world. The concept of “kingdom” has little meaning to most people, especially in the West. Perhaps it is time to seek new metaphors for explaining kingdom concepts. Before we can do this, however, we must formulate more accurate and effective ways of defining and describing the gospel message. Moreover, we have to reintroduce Jesus to the world and to ourselves.
Further, as we go about reformulating our methods of presentation of the gospel and of Jesus, we will meet challenging obstacles and barriers. Some of these challenges come from the world, some from the enemy, and remarkably, some come from ourselves.
A critical factor in exposing our culture to the radical manifesto that Christ taught is to be straightforward about its content. For too long now, the Church, especially in America, has promoted a gospel stressing individual salvation as the highest priority, with social action coming in a distant second. There were, of course, notable exceptions to this trend. Groups like the Quakers and the early Methodists faced head on issues such as economic injustice, poverty, and slavery. Be that as it may, for the large part the Church in the West has served the existing status quo at the expense of hiding the true gospel that the Lord came to deliver. Over time, the Church seems to have even hidden Christ’s gospel from itself. What we ended up with was a domesticated Jesus that patted children on the head, held lambs in his arms, and, by extension, supported our culture’s view of justice.
One tragic consequence of the Church’s support of the status quo was a distortion of the meaning of “God’s justice.” Over time the Church came to view God’s justice as mostly related to humanity’s sinful nature. God’s justice was what we would have to deal with were it not for the sacrifice of Jesus. In essence, the Church said that God’s justice, if carried out, would turn us to toast unless we repented and brought Jesus on board as savior. While there may be a smattering of truth in all this, the line of thought adopted by and preached by the Church saw the opposite of God’s justice as humanity’s sin.
I don’t think this is what Jesus was getting at. I firmly believe that, for Jesus, the opposite of God’s justice was humanity’s injustice. His mission in preaching, teaching, and applying Kingdom principles was aimed at rectifying this situation by placing God’s justice at the heart of our world, instead of humanity’s injustice.
Jesus called for a new system that ran counter to that of the world, not only in his time, but in ours as well. He called for compassion, justice, caring, service, forgiveness, and a host of other themes that are both startling and challenging. As we go about sharing Jesus’ vision, we must also be honest about how the Church, for whatever reasons, has diluted, distorted, and at times deceived in its presentation of the real “gospel” of Christ.
As the Body of Christ, it is time for us to get honest with the world we are trying to reach and even more crucial, it is time to get honest with ourselves. The image we teach, preach, and exhibit to the world through our behavior is lacking in both scope and depth. Starting with our teaching and our preaching, it is imperative that we begin to allow Jesus to be who and what he was, and still is, instead of a malleable figure from an era long ago. Moreover, we need to get to know Jesus ourselves. It is time to stop watering down the gospel and it is especially time to stop fooling ourselves into believing that he supports our political persuasion, whatever that might be. The fact is, Jesus was a revolutionary, a radical, and a thorn in the side of the religious establishment of his day. If the Lord showed up today, I can envision him being an even greater irritant to those who claim to be his followers in this day and time. I think he would especially be a menace when he dealt with the leaders of today’s Christian movements, ministries, and organizations.
The fact is the Body of Christ as a whole has done a significant amount of damage both to its witness and its reputation over the past 25-30 years. I don’t want to enter into a political debate here; that is not my intention. Both political parties have more skeletons in their respective closets than can be counted. However, a few things must be faced if we are to go about restoring Christ’s church to a position of effectiveness in post-modern culture.
The first thing that has to be tossed unceremoniously on the trash heap is our faith’s unthinking and almost mechanical marriage to the Republican Party. Since 1980 and the rise of the Reagan era, the fundamentalist, conservative, and evangelical wings of our faith have increasingly become in lockstep with the Republicans. This has done untold damage to Christianity as a whole and, if we are to find any degree of restoration and social impact, this unholy marriage has to end. Rather than a relationship that is built on Christian principles, this alliance has been more of a pact with the Devil.
Over a period spanning four years (2004-2008) I kept an accurate count of the number of times this very issue has come up in conversation with genuine spiritual seekers who were increasingly desirous of becoming involved in Christianity. During this four-year time span, no less than 508 individuals, either in casual conversation, coaching sessions, or at workshops, lectures, and training programs, have made the following statement, or something very similar with an identical meaning.
“Well, I studied the teachings of Jesus and read the Bible almost every day. I visited a number of churches and actually found a few I liked and thought I might like to join. But I can’t make myself do that.”
“Why not? What’s stopping you?”
“Well, if I want to be a real Christian, I would have to be a Republican and I just can’t bring myself to do that to myself or my family.”
This sort of statement happened no less than 508 times. That’s 508 potential converts that never happened. That’s 508 real, genuine spiritual seekers who have not been able to find Christ due to an erroneous assumption. That’s 508 people who have never been able to get actively involved in the faith and discover how truly beautiful our faith can be. That’s 508 people that have not been able to utilize and share their spiritual gifts and talents for Christ in a positive, meaningful way.
That’s 508 people with eternal futures that are, at best, uncertain.
I think this misconception on the part of people occurs for several reasons. First, it occurs because our faith, as a whole, is overly identified with the Republicans. Secondly, it happens because the news media focuses just about all of its attention regarding matters of faith on the Religious Right, ignoring the reality that there exists a multitude of Christians who are either moderate or liberal in their political and religious persuasions. Lastly, it happens because too many members of the clergy attempt to control how their congregants vote. Take for example the moronic attempts a couple of years ago by a Baptist pastor in North Carolina to expel anyone in the church who voted for a Democrat.
Please, pardon me for getting on my soap box about this, but if we as a body of faith are to have any chance of healing our image, we have to become more politically discerning and independent.
to be continued......
(c) L.D. Turner 2010/All Rights Reserved
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Reflections on the Church in Transition
Robin Meyer, in his book Saving Jesus From the Church, speaks clearly regarding the current situation of the church and its seeming inability or unwillingness to feed those very people who are so spiritually hungry.
There is a deep hunger for wisdom in our time, but the church offers up little more than sugary nostalgia with a dash of fear. There is a yearning for redemption, healing, and wholeness that is palpable, a shift in human consciousness that is widely recognized – except, it seems, in most churches.
Strangely, we have come to a moment in human history when the message of the Sermon on the Mount could indeed saves us, but it can no longer be heard above the din of dueling doctrines. Consider this: there is not a single word in that sermon about what to believe, only words about what to do. It is a behavioral manifesto, not a propositional one. Yet three centuries later, when the Nicene Creed became the official oath of Christendom, there was not a single word in it about what to do, only words about what to believe!
My friends, there is something wrong, drastically wrong, with this picture. Doctrine can do no more than guide our thoughts in one direction or another. It has no transformative power of its own, however. Today’s church is by and large an impotent institution and the sooner we get our minds around that salient fact the better. Only when we confront the reality of the situation the postmodern church finds itself in can we begin to make plans for any kind of effective, beneficial, transformational, and lasting change. Until we come to grips with the enormity of our problems, we are only whistling in the wind.
Over the course of the centuries since Christ walked the earth, we have gone about domesticating Jesus and his mission. In the process of doing so, we have lost something very important – in fact, the very source of the church’s life. By taming Jesus and toning down the revolutionary character of what he is calling for, we have lost contact with the vine. And the Master told us quite clearly what happens when such a thing occurs. Branches die when they are severed from the vine.
In the meantime, we have settled for a weak-kneed, timid imposter of a church. It’s no wonder people are fleeing the church in staggering numbers. Robin Meyers continues:
The earliest metaphors of the gospel speak of discipleship as transformation through an alternative community and reversal of conventional wisdom. In much of the church today, our metaphors speak of individual salvation and the specific promises that accompany it. The first followers of Jesus trusted him enough to become instruments of radical change. Today, worshipers of Christ agree to believe things about him in order to receive the benefits promised by the institution, not by Jesus…..Christianity as a belief system requires nothing but acquiescence. Christianity as a way of life, as a path to follow, requires a second birth, the conquest of ego, and new eyes with which to see the world.
The church as we know it will require radical change in order to survive. As I have stated elsewhere, it is difficult to see the final result of this process of change. However, I think we need to keep several key points in focus, lest we end up in a situation far worse than the one we are already in. For example:
1. We want to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water. The church is not all bad and in terms of its potential for service to the world is unlimited. Although many congregations are complaining about strained finances, as a whole the Body of Christ still has vast resources that are available.
2. As I have stated elsewhere, I see the future church as one driven by grace. The successful 21st century church will be creative, transformational, and incarnational.
3. The successful church will be one that is mission driven and service oriented.
The renewed and revitalized Body of Christ will no doubt take on numerous different forms, depending upon its location and the unique needs of its particular mission field. Still, I think we can identify a few key generalities in regards to the requirements for any successful Christian community in the coming decades. Jonathan Campbell addresses these issues by stating that:
God is bringing forth new wineskins for a fresh outpouring of wine, and it does not look like anything we’ve ever seen. So we must focus on Jesus and the wine he is pouring out, and not on the wineskin. Remember, the purpose of the wineskin is to furnish the appropriate environment for the juice of the choice grapes to ferment and season at just the right time. We should be open and flexible, like new wineskins, in order to have Jesus fill our hearts and communities. This new wineskin must be very simple and able to expand and grow with the new wine….Renewal is not enough. We all need to go through a conversion something like what the apostle Peter experienced in Acts 10 and 11. Peter’s conversion from an ethnocentric Jew to an advocate for Gentile missions was one of the most significant paradigm shifts in the history of the church. Likewise today, the church must repent of any cultural tradition that hinders the movement of the gospel across cultures. The current spiritual-cultural crisis calls for nothing less than complete repentance, what the Greeks call a metatonia, a transformation of the mind, a change of heart, and a new way of living. Just as Gentiles received salvation free of Jewish tradition, so all people have a right to follow Jesus without having to become Western or institutionalized.
Please, spend a few minutes letting that last sentence really sink in. Cultural bias can be a subtle commodity, seeping into our thinking and our methodology for conducting missions, service projects, and other Christian activities. Our cultural prejudices can be truly insidious, impacting not only our church programs, but also the way we walk out our faith as individuals on a daily basis.
Marcus Borg envisions a Christian faith that is transformation centered rather than belief centered. Its focus is on practical ways of “living the Way” as opposed to belief. In my own view, the belief centered paradigm has been much of the problem with the church for centuries and I couldn’t agree more with what Borg has to say regarding the need for a more practical, transformation-centered approach.
Borg sees this new paradigm as impacting the church in six major areas:
Adult re-education
Christian practices
Compassion and a passion for justice
Political consciousness
Living deeply into the Bible and the Christian Tradition
Commitment and intentionality
Personally, I find Borg’s take on all this both refreshing and inspirational. It is rare for either of these elements of the Christian tradition to be discussed from the pulpit in the modern church, particularly in evangelical circles. Perhaps it is time for these transformative themes to once again take precedent over the anemic practice of belief in correct doctrine. Perhaps then we might begin to see a vital church in which people’s lives are actually transformed according to the vision and the principles taught by Jesus.
When you think about it, trust and loyalty point to two critical elements that are at the heart of the Christian tradition. I’m talking about faithfulness and fidelity. In essence, these two concepts speak to the same issue, having faith in God and being faithful to God. In order for us to progress on the Christian path, we must be loyal to it, even when the going gets rough or doubt sets in. In this faithfulness, this fidelity of the spirit, we are able to dig much deeper in search of living waters. Rather than flitting about from path to path, tradition to tradition, teaching to teaching – we stay put out of trust and loyalty. We then are able to dig one hole fifty feet deep, rather than fifty one-foot holes.
Churches are notorious for resisting change, especially those churches that have been around awhile and have aging congregations. Yet change is essential if the church is to survive. Moreover, if it is to thrive, then in many cases radical change is called for. This process of change within a congregation is never easy and sometimes causes rifts and splits that are never healed. However, when a church is able to adopt an open mind and an attitude of flexibility, the possibilities of a bright and exciting future are great.
If the Christian faith is to experience a much-needed renewal, and I believe this is entirely possible, it must become less culture bound and less dependent upon institutional structures. The decline in denominational affiliation and loyalty, a cause of great concern to some, is a positive sign in my estimation. We must get away from programs, labels, and institutional restrictions and once again embrace the Kingdom message of the Master in its pristine form, before it was fenced, domesticated, and made manageable and predictable. Even more, given the trans-cultural nature of our global society, we must strip all vestiges of enculturation off the bones of the gospel. Jesus’ message had nothing to do with Western culture, nor did it have any political affiliation. Jonathan Campbell wisely relates:
Jesus is not bound by any culture or structure. His life and ways transcend all cultures. His body (the wineskin) is not to be culture-bound. Jesus calls his followers to undergo a systemic shift that goes to the root of our identity – one that questions all the assumptions of the Christendom model. What we really need are people living the life of Jesus in community, drinking the new wine of the Spirit and living as fresh wineskins in the world.
As stated above, it is hard to predict exactly what form the church will morph into, except to say that it is doubtful that there will be any unified version. Chances are, as we move through these transitional but formative times, we will see a plethora of new wineskins, some good and some not so good. The key to creating effective, missional, and inspirational new wineskins has little to do with “seeker-driven” programs and activities. Instead, the newly constituted Body of Christ will be “Christ-driven.” Our mandate in this age, as it has been since the beginning, is to discover where and how the Master is working and once we locate the epicenter, get busy doing our part.
It really is that simple.
© L.D. Turner 2010/ All Rights Reserved
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Jesus and the "I am" Statements
L.Dwight Turner
I have always benefited from taking time to meditate in a reflective way on the great "I am" declarations made by Jesus and recorded in the Gospel of John. As we approach the beginning of Advent, I thought it might be useful to present these statements as themes for readers to reflect on in preparation for the season of Advent. Jesus tells us:
• I am the Bread of Life. (6:35)
• I am the Living Water. (4:14; 7:37-39)
• I am the Light of the World. (8:12)
• I am the Door of the Sheepfold. (10:7)
• I am the Good Shepherd. (10:11, 14)
• I am the Resurrection and the Life. (11:25)
• I am the True Vine. (15:1)
• I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. (14:6)
I have always benefited from taking time to meditate in a reflective way on the great "I am" declarations made by Jesus and recorded in the Gospel of John. As we approach the beginning of Advent, I thought it might be useful to present these statements as themes for readers to reflect on in preparation for the season of Advent. Jesus tells us:
• I am the Bread of Life. (6:35)
• I am the Living Water. (4:14; 7:37-39)
• I am the Light of the World. (8:12)
• I am the Door of the Sheepfold. (10:7)
• I am the Good Shepherd. (10:11, 14)
• I am the Resurrection and the Life. (11:25)
• I am the True Vine. (15:1)
• I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. (14:6)
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Morphing The Church's Mission
L. Dwight Turner
Most observers of the Christian faith as well as all reputable research point to the reality that American Christianity has been in a state of general decline. Even a superficial surfing of the Christian blogosphere will reveal the same trend.
Everywhere folks are commenting on the state of the church and most of these commentaries are less than complimentary. In fact, the more strident of these prophets are highly critical and predict either continued decline or outright doom. Although some of this criticism is overblown and tends to ignore the church’s continued popularity and influence in certain parts of the country, as a whole, these commentaries raise valid issues for the Body of Christ. The question of the day thus becomes: “What can be done to restore the church to its former position of popularity and cultural influence?”
Assessing the purpose of the Church is a timely issue and one subject to much debate, not to mention wailing and gnashing of teeth. As the Christian Church moves forward into the 21st Century, in all quarters theologians, clergy, and laity are all involved in the task of defining the purpose of the Church in general and the role it will play in society in particular.
Nowhere is this discussion more relevant than in the traditional Mainline denominations. Often criticized for being theologically liberal and rigid in structure and function, these denominations have seen a drastic decline in numbers over the past three decades. If these churches are to survive well into the new century, it is obvious that significant change must occur.
I am of the belief that the Church will continue to undergo radical changes over the next decade and these changes will be driven by two primary forces. For most churches, the changes will be brought about by the desire to remain relevant to the post-modern culture in which it finds itself. The second force driving change, for other churches, is survival. Across America, even though some elements of the Christian faith are enjoying growth, others are on the verge of extinction. As mentioned in the preceding paragraph, this critical situation is seen especially in the Mainline denominations such as the United Church of Christ, several types of Presbyterian Churches, the United Methodist Church, the Disciples of Christ, and the American Baptist Church, just to name a few. Unless these denominations make radical alterations to their structure and focus, they may well go the way of the dinosaur.
An exhaustive treatment of the process of redefining the purpose of the Church is beyond the scope of this article. With that caveat, let’s explore a few principles upon which any new mission of the Church must be established.
Underlying all of our efforts as the Body of Christ is the notion of working along with God to establish the “Kingdom.” I can’t stress this notion of Kingdom enough and, if you take a close look at the gospels, neither could Christ. His first public statement was “Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.” After beginning this way, Christ repeatedly stressed that his mission was to inaugurate the Kingdom. As ongoing agents of incarnation, it is now our mission to pick up where Christ left off. This is the foundational mission of the church. Even the great commission is aimed at this and this only: Bringing God’s Kingdom to Earth.
The coming of the Kingdom is really the heart of the gospel. The forgiveness of sins and the work on the cross, although of central significance, is not the heart of the gospel. It is not that which brings life to the body. No, it is the coming of the Kingdom that constitutes the life of the gospel. Unfortunately, the church, especially since the reformation in general and Calvinist theology in particular, has primarily defined the gospel in terms of the remission of sins by the work of Christ. Again, I am not downplaying the importance of this. All I am saying is that it is not the core of the gospel. Jesus repeatedly stressed the coming of the Kingdom. The remission of sins is part of this, but it is far from the whole enchilada.
Part of our mission also involves reintroducing the world to Christ. I don’t mean to say that the world does not know who Christ is. What I am saying is that they don’t really know who Christ is nor have a grasp on just what he said his mission was. Further, I believe it is imperative that the Church begin this process of reintroducing Christ with its own membership.
The fact is, a great many professing Christians don’t have a clue who Christ was and still is.
For over 2,000 years the church, at times mistakenly and at times deliberately, has weakened the image of Christ and smoothed over the rough edges of his message. That way, a person could be a Christian, remain a Christian, and still be comfortable with the status quo. This has nothing to do with what Jesus was really all about. The fact is, Jesus was far more radical and revolutionary than we have been taught to believe. Listen to Bruxy Cavey as he describes what happened when he took the blinders off and got a glimpse of the real Jesus:
I entered a season in my life when I began to realize that the Jesus described in the Bible was far more attractive, exciting, and scandalous than the meek and mild Jesus many churches proclaimed. I was young and beginning to study the Bible for myself and, in the process, came to believe that I held a volatile document in my hands – one that had the potential to destroy all religion from the inside out…The writers of the Gospels – the four biblical books that record the life of Christ – us a fascinating Greek word to describe the effect that Jesus routinely had on his religious audience. They describe Jesus as a “scandalon,” meaning a stumbling block, an offense, a scandal. Their point seems to be that Jesus is a rock, but one you can trip over just as easily as build your life upon. Anyone who holds too tightly to his or her religious preconceptions will sooner or later become offended at Jesus. That is, of course, they do what countless Christians have done and tame the historical Jesus through years of conservative tradition.
As the new century progresses, an increasing number of Christians, especially those involved with what has come to be known as the “Emergent Church,” are coming to see Jesus in a more radical light. Jesus, with his message of the kingdom, was a revolutionary in the real sense of the word.
A third foundation for redefining the Church is the need for a return to “disciple making.” In order to establish new, dynamic and transformative methods of discipleship training, I think it is important to begin with a workable definition of just what a “disciple” is.
From all evidence, it would seem the church at large has lost touch with a crucial element of its mission – disciple-making. Just prior to his ascension, Christ did not tell his inner circle to “go and make converts.” No, he told them to go and make disciples. It is obvious that constructing a workable definition of a disciple is a high priority. Margaret Campbell gives us a great jump-start:
A disciple of Jesus is a person who has decided to live in attentiveness to Jesus. We live in attentiveness in order to become like Jesus on the inside and, thereby, able to do what Jesus would do on the outside. As maturing disciples we progressively learn to live in attentiveness, adoration, surrender, obedience, and thankfulness to God, and all of this, without ceasing. Through the hidden work of transformation, God writes his good way on our minds and hearts and this is very good. By his grace, our hearts are divinely changed. We are progressively conformed to be like Jesus in mind and will and soul and word and deed. What we say and what we do more consistently reflect the glory and goodness of God.
If that isn’t clear enough, let’s listen to George Barna:
True discipleship is about a lifestyle, not simply about stored up Bible knowledge. Often, churches assume that if people are reading the Bible and attending a small group, then real discipleship is happening. Unfortunately, we found that’s often not the case. Discipleship is about being and reproducing zealots for Christ. Discipleship, in other words, is about passionately pursuing the lifestyle and mission of Jesus Christ.
From these two definitions it should be clear that real discipleship, the kind of Jesus-following that makes a difference in a person’s life and the life of others, involves more than wearing a “What would Jesus Do?” bracelet.
Whatever forms the new Christianity may take, I believe it must have at least three primary elements which guide its mission and its practice. First, I see this fresh, new faith as being Creative and Progressive. By these terms I mean that the coming Christianity, while holding firmly to the core truths of its tradition, will, at the same time, find new, creative, and relevant ways in which gospel truths might be transmitted. The Body of Christ, especially in these new wine skins, will remain evangelistic but will be so in a distinctively alternative manner. Put simply, the new faith will attract potential converts through its service and its missional activities. By carrying out its Christ-given mandate to be of service, the faith will increasingly attract new members because of what the church does and what it is, not what it says and what it believes.
Secondly, the fresh, vital forms of the faith will be transformative. As stated at the beginning of this article, many sincere Christians have now sensed that something fundamental and live-giving has been missing from the traditional church for decades. The new faith bodies, small in terms of membership but highly focused in terms of purpose, will be disciple making. Spiritual formation and personal change will be the driving force of these groups of believers. Driven by the inner hunger for more of God that has been divinely placed in every heart, the new Christianity will operate under a growing awareness that God is here, he is there, and he is everywhere. Animated by that truth, the new faith understands that no one need go hungry for God. Instead, disciplines will be taught that assist individuals to become more intimate with God and generally more satisfied in their walk of faith.
Third, the new faith will be incarnational. This simply means that these small groups of consecrated believers will take seriously the Christian call to service – the privilege and the responsibility of being Christ’s hands, feet, and heart here on earth. Put simply, the new faith will have a proactive heart of service and compassion. Given the Lord these groups follow, there could be no other choice.
Taken as a whole, this trio of vital elements will give the new Christianity a solid foundation upon which to operate as the 21st Century unfolds. This fresh approach to the faith should continue to evolve as we, as the Body of Christ, encounter our changing culture in a proactive manner. Being proactive is essential, I think. For too long the Church has been reactive. This is not longer an option. Given the nature and the shifting realties of the rapidly changing world in which we find ourselves, we must proactively anticipate trends before they manifest and thereby be ready to offer the faith to our culture in ways that are consistently relevant.
Christ told us to go into all the nations and make disciples. Further, he showed us by the example of washing his disciples’ feet that we are called to nothing less than the ministry of the towel. We are not leaders, gurus, or swamis. Instead, we are servants. This, my friend, is the incarnational aspect of the disciple making church. In addition, we are now ready to put these realities into new wineskins and get on with the business at hand: helping establish the kingdom on earth.
Without doubt, the new century presents both great challenges and vital opportunities for the Body of Christ. In some ways, these challenges and opportunities are highly unique, mostly because of the complexity of post-modern culture and the rapidity of social change in the contemporary world. Any new definition of the Church’s purpose and mission must take these factors into account. This reality means that the new wineskins that come to house the 21st Century Body of Christ must possess an inordinate flexibility and fluidity. What works this year may not work next year.
In closing, it is noticed that many people are asking the question, “Can the Church survive in these post-Christian times, even if it redefines itself, its mission, and its purpose?”
It can not only survive; it can thrive.
© L.D. Turner 2008/ All Rights Reserved
Most observers of the Christian faith as well as all reputable research point to the reality that American Christianity has been in a state of general decline. Even a superficial surfing of the Christian blogosphere will reveal the same trend.
Everywhere folks are commenting on the state of the church and most of these commentaries are less than complimentary. In fact, the more strident of these prophets are highly critical and predict either continued decline or outright doom. Although some of this criticism is overblown and tends to ignore the church’s continued popularity and influence in certain parts of the country, as a whole, these commentaries raise valid issues for the Body of Christ. The question of the day thus becomes: “What can be done to restore the church to its former position of popularity and cultural influence?”
Assessing the purpose of the Church is a timely issue and one subject to much debate, not to mention wailing and gnashing of teeth. As the Christian Church moves forward into the 21st Century, in all quarters theologians, clergy, and laity are all involved in the task of defining the purpose of the Church in general and the role it will play in society in particular.
Nowhere is this discussion more relevant than in the traditional Mainline denominations. Often criticized for being theologically liberal and rigid in structure and function, these denominations have seen a drastic decline in numbers over the past three decades. If these churches are to survive well into the new century, it is obvious that significant change must occur.
I am of the belief that the Church will continue to undergo radical changes over the next decade and these changes will be driven by two primary forces. For most churches, the changes will be brought about by the desire to remain relevant to the post-modern culture in which it finds itself. The second force driving change, for other churches, is survival. Across America, even though some elements of the Christian faith are enjoying growth, others are on the verge of extinction. As mentioned in the preceding paragraph, this critical situation is seen especially in the Mainline denominations such as the United Church of Christ, several types of Presbyterian Churches, the United Methodist Church, the Disciples of Christ, and the American Baptist Church, just to name a few. Unless these denominations make radical alterations to their structure and focus, they may well go the way of the dinosaur.
An exhaustive treatment of the process of redefining the purpose of the Church is beyond the scope of this article. With that caveat, let’s explore a few principles upon which any new mission of the Church must be established.
Underlying all of our efforts as the Body of Christ is the notion of working along with God to establish the “Kingdom.” I can’t stress this notion of Kingdom enough and, if you take a close look at the gospels, neither could Christ. His first public statement was “Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.” After beginning this way, Christ repeatedly stressed that his mission was to inaugurate the Kingdom. As ongoing agents of incarnation, it is now our mission to pick up where Christ left off. This is the foundational mission of the church. Even the great commission is aimed at this and this only: Bringing God’s Kingdom to Earth.
The coming of the Kingdom is really the heart of the gospel. The forgiveness of sins and the work on the cross, although of central significance, is not the heart of the gospel. It is not that which brings life to the body. No, it is the coming of the Kingdom that constitutes the life of the gospel. Unfortunately, the church, especially since the reformation in general and Calvinist theology in particular, has primarily defined the gospel in terms of the remission of sins by the work of Christ. Again, I am not downplaying the importance of this. All I am saying is that it is not the core of the gospel. Jesus repeatedly stressed the coming of the Kingdom. The remission of sins is part of this, but it is far from the whole enchilada.
Part of our mission also involves reintroducing the world to Christ. I don’t mean to say that the world does not know who Christ is. What I am saying is that they don’t really know who Christ is nor have a grasp on just what he said his mission was. Further, I believe it is imperative that the Church begin this process of reintroducing Christ with its own membership.
The fact is, a great many professing Christians don’t have a clue who Christ was and still is.
For over 2,000 years the church, at times mistakenly and at times deliberately, has weakened the image of Christ and smoothed over the rough edges of his message. That way, a person could be a Christian, remain a Christian, and still be comfortable with the status quo. This has nothing to do with what Jesus was really all about. The fact is, Jesus was far more radical and revolutionary than we have been taught to believe. Listen to Bruxy Cavey as he describes what happened when he took the blinders off and got a glimpse of the real Jesus:
I entered a season in my life when I began to realize that the Jesus described in the Bible was far more attractive, exciting, and scandalous than the meek and mild Jesus many churches proclaimed. I was young and beginning to study the Bible for myself and, in the process, came to believe that I held a volatile document in my hands – one that had the potential to destroy all religion from the inside out…The writers of the Gospels – the four biblical books that record the life of Christ – us a fascinating Greek word to describe the effect that Jesus routinely had on his religious audience. They describe Jesus as a “scandalon,” meaning a stumbling block, an offense, a scandal. Their point seems to be that Jesus is a rock, but one you can trip over just as easily as build your life upon. Anyone who holds too tightly to his or her religious preconceptions will sooner or later become offended at Jesus. That is, of course, they do what countless Christians have done and tame the historical Jesus through years of conservative tradition.
As the new century progresses, an increasing number of Christians, especially those involved with what has come to be known as the “Emergent Church,” are coming to see Jesus in a more radical light. Jesus, with his message of the kingdom, was a revolutionary in the real sense of the word.
A third foundation for redefining the Church is the need for a return to “disciple making.” In order to establish new, dynamic and transformative methods of discipleship training, I think it is important to begin with a workable definition of just what a “disciple” is.
From all evidence, it would seem the church at large has lost touch with a crucial element of its mission – disciple-making. Just prior to his ascension, Christ did not tell his inner circle to “go and make converts.” No, he told them to go and make disciples. It is obvious that constructing a workable definition of a disciple is a high priority. Margaret Campbell gives us a great jump-start:
A disciple of Jesus is a person who has decided to live in attentiveness to Jesus. We live in attentiveness in order to become like Jesus on the inside and, thereby, able to do what Jesus would do on the outside. As maturing disciples we progressively learn to live in attentiveness, adoration, surrender, obedience, and thankfulness to God, and all of this, without ceasing. Through the hidden work of transformation, God writes his good way on our minds and hearts and this is very good. By his grace, our hearts are divinely changed. We are progressively conformed to be like Jesus in mind and will and soul and word and deed. What we say and what we do more consistently reflect the glory and goodness of God.
If that isn’t clear enough, let’s listen to George Barna:
True discipleship is about a lifestyle, not simply about stored up Bible knowledge. Often, churches assume that if people are reading the Bible and attending a small group, then real discipleship is happening. Unfortunately, we found that’s often not the case. Discipleship is about being and reproducing zealots for Christ. Discipleship, in other words, is about passionately pursuing the lifestyle and mission of Jesus Christ.
From these two definitions it should be clear that real discipleship, the kind of Jesus-following that makes a difference in a person’s life and the life of others, involves more than wearing a “What would Jesus Do?” bracelet.
Whatever forms the new Christianity may take, I believe it must have at least three primary elements which guide its mission and its practice. First, I see this fresh, new faith as being Creative and Progressive. By these terms I mean that the coming Christianity, while holding firmly to the core truths of its tradition, will, at the same time, find new, creative, and relevant ways in which gospel truths might be transmitted. The Body of Christ, especially in these new wine skins, will remain evangelistic but will be so in a distinctively alternative manner. Put simply, the new faith will attract potential converts through its service and its missional activities. By carrying out its Christ-given mandate to be of service, the faith will increasingly attract new members because of what the church does and what it is, not what it says and what it believes.
Secondly, the fresh, vital forms of the faith will be transformative. As stated at the beginning of this article, many sincere Christians have now sensed that something fundamental and live-giving has been missing from the traditional church for decades. The new faith bodies, small in terms of membership but highly focused in terms of purpose, will be disciple making. Spiritual formation and personal change will be the driving force of these groups of believers. Driven by the inner hunger for more of God that has been divinely placed in every heart, the new Christianity will operate under a growing awareness that God is here, he is there, and he is everywhere. Animated by that truth, the new faith understands that no one need go hungry for God. Instead, disciplines will be taught that assist individuals to become more intimate with God and generally more satisfied in their walk of faith.
Third, the new faith will be incarnational. This simply means that these small groups of consecrated believers will take seriously the Christian call to service – the privilege and the responsibility of being Christ’s hands, feet, and heart here on earth. Put simply, the new faith will have a proactive heart of service and compassion. Given the Lord these groups follow, there could be no other choice.
Taken as a whole, this trio of vital elements will give the new Christianity a solid foundation upon which to operate as the 21st Century unfolds. This fresh approach to the faith should continue to evolve as we, as the Body of Christ, encounter our changing culture in a proactive manner. Being proactive is essential, I think. For too long the Church has been reactive. This is not longer an option. Given the nature and the shifting realties of the rapidly changing world in which we find ourselves, we must proactively anticipate trends before they manifest and thereby be ready to offer the faith to our culture in ways that are consistently relevant.
Christ told us to go into all the nations and make disciples. Further, he showed us by the example of washing his disciples’ feet that we are called to nothing less than the ministry of the towel. We are not leaders, gurus, or swamis. Instead, we are servants. This, my friend, is the incarnational aspect of the disciple making church. In addition, we are now ready to put these realities into new wineskins and get on with the business at hand: helping establish the kingdom on earth.
Without doubt, the new century presents both great challenges and vital opportunities for the Body of Christ. In some ways, these challenges and opportunities are highly unique, mostly because of the complexity of post-modern culture and the rapidity of social change in the contemporary world. Any new definition of the Church’s purpose and mission must take these factors into account. This reality means that the new wineskins that come to house the 21st Century Body of Christ must possess an inordinate flexibility and fluidity. What works this year may not work next year.
In closing, it is noticed that many people are asking the question, “Can the Church survive in these post-Christian times, even if it redefines itself, its mission, and its purpose?”
It can not only survive; it can thrive.
© L.D. Turner 2008/ All Rights Reserved
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Lazarus Come Forth!
L. Dwight Turner
As the new century begins to unfold, we often hear many so-called and often self-proclaimed “experts” on culture and religion predicting the extinction of Christianity. If one listens closely to these pundits, it would seem the faith is already in its death throes, gasping vainly for its final breath. Are these doomsday prophets correct? Is the ancient and once-vibrant church universal on the cusp of being relegated to the dust bin of sociological irrelevance?
The answer is clear: Yes and no.
If one is speaking of the Church in its traditional form and structure, securely anchored to its dated and increasingly ineffective methodology of encountering the world, then the answer is a resounding yes. The Church of yesterday is rapidly becoming just that – the Church of yesterday. Stubbornly clinging to a Jurassic vision of its mission, function, and structure, the traditional church is incapable of successfully navigating the shifting shoals of the post-modern world. To make matters worse, people outside the Church have an increasingly negative view of Christianity in general and Christians in particular.
There can be little doubt that we are living not only in the post-modern age, but the post-Christian age as well. Some of our more cocooned brothers and sisters may be in denial of this fact, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is true. And now hear this, things are not going to go back to the good old days. As the old saying goes, once it’s a pickle, it ain’t gonna be a cucumber ever again. Don’t just take my word for it, take heed of these statistics, culled from the research of several prominent church historians and sociologists, as well as renowned researcher George Barna.
Historians postulate it took from the beginning of the church to the year 1900 for followers of Jesus to make up 2.5 percent of the world population. In the seventy years beyond that, it more than doubled. By 1970, the number of committed believers in the world expanded to over 6 percent. From 1970 to 1992 the number doubled again. So right now, in the world it is something like 12 or 13 percent. These are flowers of Jesus Christ, people who say, “I am born again.” Here’s what’s really interesting. Seventy percent of this growth happened in the last fifteen years. All of that sounds pretty good, Turner, so why are you waving all these red flags in our faces? Well, here’s why:
Seventy percent of that growth is happening outside the United States.
The trends on our shores are just the opposite. In America today, over 85 percent of the churches are stagnant or dying. And while the appearance is there is an abundance of churches, the truth is most are nearly empty buildings with an average attendance of fewer than seventy-five. Every week more churches close their doors. Even in Nashville, the buckle of the Bible Belt and home to numerous large para-church ministries, churches are being turned into storage buildings, office complexes, and strip joints. Some downtown churches are more famous for the architecture than for the person and purpose they were built to glorify.
“America is fast becoming the land of empty church buildings and hollow religion,” said David Foster, founding pastor of one of Nashville’s largest congregations. “Out of 450,000 Protestant churches, we lost fifty thousand churches in the ‘90’s. I heard a denominational leader say recently roughly 5,000 ministers are leaving the ministry every month. These are obscene and sobering numbers.”
Not such a pretty picture, is it? I live in the heart of the Bible Belt, where people still go to church in large numbers and Christianity remains a strong force in the cultural mix. We have no real shortage of churches and, except for several crisis-driven denominations, few churches are actually closing their doors. Still, the trend of declining numbers is more apparent in the larger cities in the Bible Belt, like Nashville, Memphis, and Atlanta. In other parts of the country, entire denominations seem to have on foot in the morgue and the other on a banana peel.
Denominational leaders and church leaders tend to react in one of four basic ways: outright denial; panic-fueled tail chasing, like a dog running in circles; blaming everyone but themselves; or trying to find new, creative ways to fix the mess. Only Number Four has the proverbial snowball’s chance.
A significant section of the Body of Christ has arisen, showing not only signs of life, but also a freshness of vision, a flexibility of methodology, and a contagious optimism. Often referred to as the “Emerging Church”, this proactive, mission-driven force in the Church is proving that the demise of the Christian faith is, to echo Mark Twain, greatly exaggerated.
In my mind’s eye, I often see Christ standing before the fetid tomb of Mary and Martha’s brother. With a calm, reassuring voice, Jesus spoke:
Lazarus, come forth!
Some of those assembled there initially expressed concern:
But Lord, he has been dead four days. He stinketh.
In spite of the odor, Jesus called his friend back to life and Lazarus responded. Still wrapped in his burial cloths, the once-dead man now walked with new life. As the vision progresses, it is no longer Lazarus who I see resurrected at the Lord’s call, but the contemporary Church. Particularly, I see the revitalization and renewal of the old Mainline denominations, so rich in tradition and resources. These denominations have experienced the greatest loss in terms of numbers and influence, yet it is these very segments of the Church that have the most to offer.
As the Body of Christ finds its way in our post-modern, post-Christian culture, I believe we will see major chances in the way the Church goes about its business. In addition to shifts in organizational structure and a reduced role of the ordained clergy, the churches that survive will be the ones that are innovative, transformative, and incarnational.
If the Church is to reach the growing post-Christian culture in ways that are relevant and effective, several things must be seen with clarity and focus. First, the primary question that must be answered is not, “How can we evangelize these people?” Instead, the relevant question must be, “How can I help you?” It is through this sort of proactive Christian service that the Church’s evangelistic witness can be best fostered. Secondly, the Church must reconsider how it can best present the truths of the faith in new wineskins that are more appropriate than the 19th Century model that is commonly used even today. We must re-introduce people to God, to Christ, to the Scriptures, and to the Church and this must be done in ways that are both practical and palatable, given the parameters of the environment in which the Church is now operating.
One salient and ubiquitous feature of 21st Century America centers on the increased interest in all things spiritual. Increasingly, people are seeking spiritual experience, not just dogma, doctrine, and didactics. Many Americans find themselves encountering the reality that something important is missing from their lives and they are quite active in their search for an answer. It is here that the Church has consistently fallen short of the mark.
Protestant Christianity in particular has long been suspicious, even paranoid, regarding spiritual disciplines and spiritual experience. As a result, the Church as we know it has been narrowly focused on belief and doctrine, ignoring the experiential, subjective side of an individual’s walk of faith. Discipleship programs have traditionally been focused on regimented Bible study and the central aspect of the overwhelming majority of Protestant worship services is the pastor’s sermon. Is it any wonder that many churches see dwindling numbers? The spiritual seeker of today finds the typical church service and discipleship program as unsatisfying and irrelevant. As a result, they turn elsewhere. Spiritual paths such as Buddhism, Yoga, Wicca, and many self-help programs are flourishing, primarily because they are more likely to address the needs of today’s spiritual seeker.
Connected with this lack of deep discipleship on the part of the Church is a general lack of transformative experience among the faithful. According to the majority of sociological and spiritual research done by Gallup, as well as George Barna, the typical believer is not significantly different than the non-believer in terms of worldview. Our pews are filled with sincere people who are, in the words of Thoreau, living lives of quiet desperation. This unfortunate reality accounts for the fact that a tour of any Christian book store will reveal a plethora of books with dust jackets that claim the book will, “change your life.”
Why do so many Christian experience such a desperate quality of life and seek something life-changing? Precisely because the Church has not provided a consistent means for spiritual growth and fulfillment. Let’s get real about this. A few praise songs, a couple of corporate prayers, a didactic Sunday School lesson, and a sermon just doesn’t cut it. If the Church is to thrive in the context of the current culture, it must be transformative.
Finally, the Body of Christ must develop innovative methods of giving flesh to its primary mission: incarnating Christ. The new Church must be mission-driven and willing to get its hands dirty. I believe the 21st Century churches that thrive will increasingly be those that arise out of the culture where a need exists. These types of congregations will be largely unconventional in terms of make up and methodology. Numerous examples already exist and can serve as models upon which new, innovative churches can be built. Congregations like “Mosaic” in Los Angeles, “Solomon’s Porch” in Minneapolis, and “The Rock” in Huntsville, Alabama are but three among many examples to build upon. These churches are thriving because they encounter the surrounding culture and grow within the context of that culture.
If the Body of Christ can incorporate progressive innovation, transformation, and incarnation into its calling and its mission, the consistent answer to the naysayers who are blowing Taps on Christianity will be a resounding, “No!”
The Church faces major challenges as it learns to live within a cultural context in which it finds itself increasingly marginalized. We can either put our heads in the sand and pretend the storm isn’t on the horizon, or, we can come up with creative new wineskins to fulfill our commission being salt and light in our world. Realistically, we can assume some churches will do well, while others will become flavorless seasoning and blown out light bulbs. Some will become, in the words of Paul, a pleasant aroma to the nostrils; while others, unfortunately, will stinketh.
How individual churches choose to respond to the realities of the situation will determine whether they will die, survive, or thrive.
As the new century begins to unfold, we often hear many so-called and often self-proclaimed “experts” on culture and religion predicting the extinction of Christianity. If one listens closely to these pundits, it would seem the faith is already in its death throes, gasping vainly for its final breath. Are these doomsday prophets correct? Is the ancient and once-vibrant church universal on the cusp of being relegated to the dust bin of sociological irrelevance?
The answer is clear: Yes and no.
If one is speaking of the Church in its traditional form and structure, securely anchored to its dated and increasingly ineffective methodology of encountering the world, then the answer is a resounding yes. The Church of yesterday is rapidly becoming just that – the Church of yesterday. Stubbornly clinging to a Jurassic vision of its mission, function, and structure, the traditional church is incapable of successfully navigating the shifting shoals of the post-modern world. To make matters worse, people outside the Church have an increasingly negative view of Christianity in general and Christians in particular.
There can be little doubt that we are living not only in the post-modern age, but the post-Christian age as well. Some of our more cocooned brothers and sisters may be in denial of this fact, but that doesn’t change the fact that it is true. And now hear this, things are not going to go back to the good old days. As the old saying goes, once it’s a pickle, it ain’t gonna be a cucumber ever again. Don’t just take my word for it, take heed of these statistics, culled from the research of several prominent church historians and sociologists, as well as renowned researcher George Barna.
Historians postulate it took from the beginning of the church to the year 1900 for followers of Jesus to make up 2.5 percent of the world population. In the seventy years beyond that, it more than doubled. By 1970, the number of committed believers in the world expanded to over 6 percent. From 1970 to 1992 the number doubled again. So right now, in the world it is something like 12 or 13 percent. These are flowers of Jesus Christ, people who say, “I am born again.” Here’s what’s really interesting. Seventy percent of this growth happened in the last fifteen years. All of that sounds pretty good, Turner, so why are you waving all these red flags in our faces? Well, here’s why:
Seventy percent of that growth is happening outside the United States.
The trends on our shores are just the opposite. In America today, over 85 percent of the churches are stagnant or dying. And while the appearance is there is an abundance of churches, the truth is most are nearly empty buildings with an average attendance of fewer than seventy-five. Every week more churches close their doors. Even in Nashville, the buckle of the Bible Belt and home to numerous large para-church ministries, churches are being turned into storage buildings, office complexes, and strip joints. Some downtown churches are more famous for the architecture than for the person and purpose they were built to glorify.
“America is fast becoming the land of empty church buildings and hollow religion,” said David Foster, founding pastor of one of Nashville’s largest congregations. “Out of 450,000 Protestant churches, we lost fifty thousand churches in the ‘90’s. I heard a denominational leader say recently roughly 5,000 ministers are leaving the ministry every month. These are obscene and sobering numbers.”
Not such a pretty picture, is it? I live in the heart of the Bible Belt, where people still go to church in large numbers and Christianity remains a strong force in the cultural mix. We have no real shortage of churches and, except for several crisis-driven denominations, few churches are actually closing their doors. Still, the trend of declining numbers is more apparent in the larger cities in the Bible Belt, like Nashville, Memphis, and Atlanta. In other parts of the country, entire denominations seem to have on foot in the morgue and the other on a banana peel.
Denominational leaders and church leaders tend to react in one of four basic ways: outright denial; panic-fueled tail chasing, like a dog running in circles; blaming everyone but themselves; or trying to find new, creative ways to fix the mess. Only Number Four has the proverbial snowball’s chance.
A significant section of the Body of Christ has arisen, showing not only signs of life, but also a freshness of vision, a flexibility of methodology, and a contagious optimism. Often referred to as the “Emerging Church”, this proactive, mission-driven force in the Church is proving that the demise of the Christian faith is, to echo Mark Twain, greatly exaggerated.
In my mind’s eye, I often see Christ standing before the fetid tomb of Mary and Martha’s brother. With a calm, reassuring voice, Jesus spoke:
Lazarus, come forth!
Some of those assembled there initially expressed concern:
But Lord, he has been dead four days. He stinketh.
In spite of the odor, Jesus called his friend back to life and Lazarus responded. Still wrapped in his burial cloths, the once-dead man now walked with new life. As the vision progresses, it is no longer Lazarus who I see resurrected at the Lord’s call, but the contemporary Church. Particularly, I see the revitalization and renewal of the old Mainline denominations, so rich in tradition and resources. These denominations have experienced the greatest loss in terms of numbers and influence, yet it is these very segments of the Church that have the most to offer.
As the Body of Christ finds its way in our post-modern, post-Christian culture, I believe we will see major chances in the way the Church goes about its business. In addition to shifts in organizational structure and a reduced role of the ordained clergy, the churches that survive will be the ones that are innovative, transformative, and incarnational.
If the Church is to reach the growing post-Christian culture in ways that are relevant and effective, several things must be seen with clarity and focus. First, the primary question that must be answered is not, “How can we evangelize these people?” Instead, the relevant question must be, “How can I help you?” It is through this sort of proactive Christian service that the Church’s evangelistic witness can be best fostered. Secondly, the Church must reconsider how it can best present the truths of the faith in new wineskins that are more appropriate than the 19th Century model that is commonly used even today. We must re-introduce people to God, to Christ, to the Scriptures, and to the Church and this must be done in ways that are both practical and palatable, given the parameters of the environment in which the Church is now operating.
One salient and ubiquitous feature of 21st Century America centers on the increased interest in all things spiritual. Increasingly, people are seeking spiritual experience, not just dogma, doctrine, and didactics. Many Americans find themselves encountering the reality that something important is missing from their lives and they are quite active in their search for an answer. It is here that the Church has consistently fallen short of the mark.
Protestant Christianity in particular has long been suspicious, even paranoid, regarding spiritual disciplines and spiritual experience. As a result, the Church as we know it has been narrowly focused on belief and doctrine, ignoring the experiential, subjective side of an individual’s walk of faith. Discipleship programs have traditionally been focused on regimented Bible study and the central aspect of the overwhelming majority of Protestant worship services is the pastor’s sermon. Is it any wonder that many churches see dwindling numbers? The spiritual seeker of today finds the typical church service and discipleship program as unsatisfying and irrelevant. As a result, they turn elsewhere. Spiritual paths such as Buddhism, Yoga, Wicca, and many self-help programs are flourishing, primarily because they are more likely to address the needs of today’s spiritual seeker.
Connected with this lack of deep discipleship on the part of the Church is a general lack of transformative experience among the faithful. According to the majority of sociological and spiritual research done by Gallup, as well as George Barna, the typical believer is not significantly different than the non-believer in terms of worldview. Our pews are filled with sincere people who are, in the words of Thoreau, living lives of quiet desperation. This unfortunate reality accounts for the fact that a tour of any Christian book store will reveal a plethora of books with dust jackets that claim the book will, “change your life.”
Why do so many Christian experience such a desperate quality of life and seek something life-changing? Precisely because the Church has not provided a consistent means for spiritual growth and fulfillment. Let’s get real about this. A few praise songs, a couple of corporate prayers, a didactic Sunday School lesson, and a sermon just doesn’t cut it. If the Church is to thrive in the context of the current culture, it must be transformative.
Finally, the Body of Christ must develop innovative methods of giving flesh to its primary mission: incarnating Christ. The new Church must be mission-driven and willing to get its hands dirty. I believe the 21st Century churches that thrive will increasingly be those that arise out of the culture where a need exists. These types of congregations will be largely unconventional in terms of make up and methodology. Numerous examples already exist and can serve as models upon which new, innovative churches can be built. Congregations like “Mosaic” in Los Angeles, “Solomon’s Porch” in Minneapolis, and “The Rock” in Huntsville, Alabama are but three among many examples to build upon. These churches are thriving because they encounter the surrounding culture and grow within the context of that culture.
If the Body of Christ can incorporate progressive innovation, transformation, and incarnation into its calling and its mission, the consistent answer to the naysayers who are blowing Taps on Christianity will be a resounding, “No!”
The Church faces major challenges as it learns to live within a cultural context in which it finds itself increasingly marginalized. We can either put our heads in the sand and pretend the storm isn’t on the horizon, or, we can come up with creative new wineskins to fulfill our commission being salt and light in our world. Realistically, we can assume some churches will do well, while others will become flavorless seasoning and blown out light bulbs. Some will become, in the words of Paul, a pleasant aroma to the nostrils; while others, unfortunately, will stinketh.
How individual churches choose to respond to the realities of the situation will determine whether they will die, survive, or thrive.
Monday, October 13, 2008
The Church and Change: A Contentious Partnership
L. Dwight Turner
Much has been written of late regarding the demise of the institutional church. As a fresh wind blows across the land, Christians in America are experimenting with a variety of new ways of “doing church,” some holding much promise and others about as fulfilling as an empty Coke bottle. Still, in spite of this recent trend and all the promise it indeed holds, I think we can safely assume that, at least for the foreseeable future, a large portion of our mission of incarnating Christ’s ongoing work on earth will be done in the context of the “traditional” church.
However, as the new century progresses and our culture moves farther and farther away from being a part of “Christendom”, it becomes apparent that the form the church takes in these challenging times will be much different, particularly as it applies to approaching the youth culture. Much of what we have done in past models of the church has been well meaning but quite ineffective. This is a difficult truth for many of us to face, but face it we must. Otherwise, we will continue to do what we have always done and continue to get results that are less than desirable. David Foster, author and pastor of a large church in Nashville, gives a vivid example of what church was like for him in his younger years and his response to the programs of his church.
I was raised in a typical county seat church in the south whose mission centered on fear, guilt, and manipulation. Like most guys my age, I viewed the whole church thing with a jaundiced eye. Church was little more than an obligatory nod to God every seven days. It was a cheap form of fire insurance against burning forever in the fiery flames of a devil’s hell. So I went to church, lied about reading my Bible, made a “decision” for Jesus, endured boring sermons, and got with the program like all the other good little religious robots. After all, acquiescing to the church-thing one hour a week seemed like a small price to pay for an eternity of bliss and happiness in heaven, especially since death seems pretty much unavoidable.
Personally, I can relate to much of what Foster says. My experiences with the church, particularly in my early teenage years, were far from the ideal. When I am brutally honest about it, I must confess that my motivations for regular church attendance were less than that of a spiritual giant. My reasons for sacrificing that greatest of joys were not what you would find in an autobiography of a saint like Francis or Augustine. No, the inner magnet drawing me to first the Baptist Mission in Nokomis, Florida and, a little later, the Nazarene Church in Venice, Florida, was not a holy desire and, unless the Celestial Canine took a very creative disguise, it was not the famed Hound of Heaven. No, my motivations were of a baser nature. My reasons for crawling out of bed on Sunday morning were, in all candor:
Paulette Boatright and Diane Shattuck.
I won’t bore you with the sordid details of my attraction to and subsequent pursuit of these two fine young ladies. It is sufficient at this point to say that Paulette, in all of her pristine, 13-year-old glory, kept me at the Baptist Mission for over six months and, after that pre-adolescent fancy faded into a haze of disappointment and fizzling hormones, Diane appeared. The fact that her family were fundamentalist and, worse still, hanky-waving holiness folks, didn’t matter. What mattered was Diane and I hit it off. I bought a pack of white hankies with my allowance and went with her family to the Nazarene Church for close to a year. So, you can see, just as the Prodigal Son returned to his Father out of less than saintly motives, I, too, returned to God’s house more out of pubescent fire than any flame of the Holy Ghost.
As the Church morphs into something more effective and enlightened in its response to the realities of postmodern culture, we will quickly discover that the newer generations are looking for things of a much different nature and quality than what we Boomers sought and are seeking. And we should not be at all surprised when these younger Christians, sincere but much different than past norms, are quite vocal about what they think they need. David Foster, in his fascinating book Renegades for God, relates the following, which speaks clearly to this issue:
God is too good and life is too short to allow rigid, self-righteous, do-gooders with a religious agenda keep you from Him. So if you’re done worrying about what “they” say or do, then join the club. If you’re weary of the morality police and their cellophane sainthood, then lean in and let’s talk. If you’re repelled by the pointless, prosaic preaching of self-appointed prophets with a Messiah complex, then you, my friend, might just be a closet renegade and today could be your coming out party…I’m calling for the creation of a renegade nation where love is the ethic and freedom is the goal. Declare your independence from lazy legalism, feeble faith, and domesticated religion. If you suspect that deep down inside you lives a vibrant, vital, virtuous soul ready to rid itself of shame-bound religion, then you’re a renegade ready to step forth free and fully engaged in the art of the J-life. You can love God passionately and with deep conviction without becoming an arrogant, self-righteous, know-it-all.
As we encounter postmodern, post-Christian culture, in whatever setting God places us, we may be called upon to challenge, and at times, dismantle religious sacred cows of the past. Not because these relics were bad or ill-conceived, but instead, because they no longer give milk that will sustain our mission of bringing Christ’s message to the world in which we find ourselves. Again, Foster speaks:
An R4G (Renegade for God) dares to question the conventional wisdom and spiritual infallibility of the religious elite. “They” fear your freedom and at the same time display little confidence in the gospel’s power to renovate the human heart, renew the mind, and redirect the renegade spirit within toward the epic, ethical purposes of God. “They” want only mindless, spineless adherents who spout out an endless stream of “praise the Lords” as you pack their pews and fill their offering plates.
Regardless of their motives, their tastes, and other generational inclinations, one fact remains true regarding this emerging horde of younger Christians: The Church belongs to them.
Yes, ultimately the church belongs to Christ, it is, after all, his bride. Still, the fact remains that in terms of earthly ownership, the church belongs to the younger set of Christians. Many of us old codgers don’t want to see this or accept it. I think this resistance, deep down where it is really real, stems from our denial of a very central truth: 25 years from now, most of us 60-year-old pundits probably won’t be around. Some of us might be, but our days of church leadership will have long been over. Instead, we will find ourselves, however subtle or ceremoniously, put out to ecclesiastical pasture.
What I am getting at here is the reality that we older Christians must now deal with. Our greatest challenge is one of “letting go.” Granted, this may seem difficult and it surely will seem unfair to many of the Builder generation and the front end of the Boomers. Unfair as it may seem, it is the major task before us at this time. We have to let go and give the reins of the church to a younger crowd. It is not so much a question of one group being more important than another. It is, however, a question of significance.
The younger generations are going to be around a quarter century from now. For the rest of us, this is an iffy call at best. In this sense, at least in terms of the survival of the church, the responsibility of moving forward rests with those generations behind us.
If you would like more insight into this issue, I would highly recommend reading Gordon MacDonald’s book, Who Stole My Church? MacDonald tackles this thorny issue head on in a creative and attention-holding manner. MacDonald has written the book in a highly readable format, one that lends itself very well to the topic. Rather than writing a standard didactic non-fiction work, the author has arranged the book in a fictional setting in which the pastor of a church is facing significant friction from a cadre of older, active members who are resistant to the changes being brought about by younger congregants with a different focus. In order to gently educate these resistant members to what is going on and why, the pastor forms a “Discovery Group” which meets on Tuesday nights to dig deeply into the matter. The group also serves as a venue where these committed church members can vent their ongoing frustrations about changes in the church. The fact that MacDonald puts the book together this way makes an otherwise difficult subject highly readable and even entertaining.
The book is subtitled, “What to do When the Church You Love Tries To Enter the 21st Century.” MacDonald well understands that the future of the church lies with the younger generation, not with the older folks, no matter how loyal and committed they might be. This view is not to downplay or trivialize the needs of the older members in a church, but instead, to break through the church’s denial system and help us all see that unless the needs of the younger people come to the forefront, the church will go the way of the dinosaur.
© L.D. Turner 2008/All Rights Reserved
Much has been written of late regarding the demise of the institutional church. As a fresh wind blows across the land, Christians in America are experimenting with a variety of new ways of “doing church,” some holding much promise and others about as fulfilling as an empty Coke bottle. Still, in spite of this recent trend and all the promise it indeed holds, I think we can safely assume that, at least for the foreseeable future, a large portion of our mission of incarnating Christ’s ongoing work on earth will be done in the context of the “traditional” church.
However, as the new century progresses and our culture moves farther and farther away from being a part of “Christendom”, it becomes apparent that the form the church takes in these challenging times will be much different, particularly as it applies to approaching the youth culture. Much of what we have done in past models of the church has been well meaning but quite ineffective. This is a difficult truth for many of us to face, but face it we must. Otherwise, we will continue to do what we have always done and continue to get results that are less than desirable. David Foster, author and pastor of a large church in Nashville, gives a vivid example of what church was like for him in his younger years and his response to the programs of his church.
I was raised in a typical county seat church in the south whose mission centered on fear, guilt, and manipulation. Like most guys my age, I viewed the whole church thing with a jaundiced eye. Church was little more than an obligatory nod to God every seven days. It was a cheap form of fire insurance against burning forever in the fiery flames of a devil’s hell. So I went to church, lied about reading my Bible, made a “decision” for Jesus, endured boring sermons, and got with the program like all the other good little religious robots. After all, acquiescing to the church-thing one hour a week seemed like a small price to pay for an eternity of bliss and happiness in heaven, especially since death seems pretty much unavoidable.
Personally, I can relate to much of what Foster says. My experiences with the church, particularly in my early teenage years, were far from the ideal. When I am brutally honest about it, I must confess that my motivations for regular church attendance were less than that of a spiritual giant. My reasons for sacrificing that greatest of joys were not what you would find in an autobiography of a saint like Francis or Augustine. No, the inner magnet drawing me to first the Baptist Mission in Nokomis, Florida and, a little later, the Nazarene Church in Venice, Florida, was not a holy desire and, unless the Celestial Canine took a very creative disguise, it was not the famed Hound of Heaven. No, my motivations were of a baser nature. My reasons for crawling out of bed on Sunday morning were, in all candor:
Paulette Boatright and Diane Shattuck.
I won’t bore you with the sordid details of my attraction to and subsequent pursuit of these two fine young ladies. It is sufficient at this point to say that Paulette, in all of her pristine, 13-year-old glory, kept me at the Baptist Mission for over six months and, after that pre-adolescent fancy faded into a haze of disappointment and fizzling hormones, Diane appeared. The fact that her family were fundamentalist and, worse still, hanky-waving holiness folks, didn’t matter. What mattered was Diane and I hit it off. I bought a pack of white hankies with my allowance and went with her family to the Nazarene Church for close to a year. So, you can see, just as the Prodigal Son returned to his Father out of less than saintly motives, I, too, returned to God’s house more out of pubescent fire than any flame of the Holy Ghost.
As the Church morphs into something more effective and enlightened in its response to the realities of postmodern culture, we will quickly discover that the newer generations are looking for things of a much different nature and quality than what we Boomers sought and are seeking. And we should not be at all surprised when these younger Christians, sincere but much different than past norms, are quite vocal about what they think they need. David Foster, in his fascinating book Renegades for God, relates the following, which speaks clearly to this issue:
God is too good and life is too short to allow rigid, self-righteous, do-gooders with a religious agenda keep you from Him. So if you’re done worrying about what “they” say or do, then join the club. If you’re weary of the morality police and their cellophane sainthood, then lean in and let’s talk. If you’re repelled by the pointless, prosaic preaching of self-appointed prophets with a Messiah complex, then you, my friend, might just be a closet renegade and today could be your coming out party…I’m calling for the creation of a renegade nation where love is the ethic and freedom is the goal. Declare your independence from lazy legalism, feeble faith, and domesticated religion. If you suspect that deep down inside you lives a vibrant, vital, virtuous soul ready to rid itself of shame-bound religion, then you’re a renegade ready to step forth free and fully engaged in the art of the J-life. You can love God passionately and with deep conviction without becoming an arrogant, self-righteous, know-it-all.
As we encounter postmodern, post-Christian culture, in whatever setting God places us, we may be called upon to challenge, and at times, dismantle religious sacred cows of the past. Not because these relics were bad or ill-conceived, but instead, because they no longer give milk that will sustain our mission of bringing Christ’s message to the world in which we find ourselves. Again, Foster speaks:
An R4G (Renegade for God) dares to question the conventional wisdom and spiritual infallibility of the religious elite. “They” fear your freedom and at the same time display little confidence in the gospel’s power to renovate the human heart, renew the mind, and redirect the renegade spirit within toward the epic, ethical purposes of God. “They” want only mindless, spineless adherents who spout out an endless stream of “praise the Lords” as you pack their pews and fill their offering plates.
Regardless of their motives, their tastes, and other generational inclinations, one fact remains true regarding this emerging horde of younger Christians: The Church belongs to them.
Yes, ultimately the church belongs to Christ, it is, after all, his bride. Still, the fact remains that in terms of earthly ownership, the church belongs to the younger set of Christians. Many of us old codgers don’t want to see this or accept it. I think this resistance, deep down where it is really real, stems from our denial of a very central truth: 25 years from now, most of us 60-year-old pundits probably won’t be around. Some of us might be, but our days of church leadership will have long been over. Instead, we will find ourselves, however subtle or ceremoniously, put out to ecclesiastical pasture.
What I am getting at here is the reality that we older Christians must now deal with. Our greatest challenge is one of “letting go.” Granted, this may seem difficult and it surely will seem unfair to many of the Builder generation and the front end of the Boomers. Unfair as it may seem, it is the major task before us at this time. We have to let go and give the reins of the church to a younger crowd. It is not so much a question of one group being more important than another. It is, however, a question of significance.
The younger generations are going to be around a quarter century from now. For the rest of us, this is an iffy call at best. In this sense, at least in terms of the survival of the church, the responsibility of moving forward rests with those generations behind us.
If you would like more insight into this issue, I would highly recommend reading Gordon MacDonald’s book, Who Stole My Church? MacDonald tackles this thorny issue head on in a creative and attention-holding manner. MacDonald has written the book in a highly readable format, one that lends itself very well to the topic. Rather than writing a standard didactic non-fiction work, the author has arranged the book in a fictional setting in which the pastor of a church is facing significant friction from a cadre of older, active members who are resistant to the changes being brought about by younger congregants with a different focus. In order to gently educate these resistant members to what is going on and why, the pastor forms a “Discovery Group” which meets on Tuesday nights to dig deeply into the matter. The group also serves as a venue where these committed church members can vent their ongoing frustrations about changes in the church. The fact that MacDonald puts the book together this way makes an otherwise difficult subject highly readable and even entertaining.
The book is subtitled, “What to do When the Church You Love Tries To Enter the 21st Century.” MacDonald well understands that the future of the church lies with the younger generation, not with the older folks, no matter how loyal and committed they might be. This view is not to downplay or trivialize the needs of the older members in a church, but instead, to break through the church’s denial system and help us all see that unless the needs of the younger people come to the forefront, the church will go the way of the dinosaur.
© L.D. Turner 2008/All Rights Reserved
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
A Biblical Worldview: Don't Leave Home Without It (Part One)
Mick Turner
I have come to the conclusion that few endeavors in the life of a Christian are as important as the process of “worldview development.” The fact is, many Christians have never given thought to the significance of one’s worldview and, of the few that have taken up the subject, most quickly put it aside in favor of more tangible and practical pursuits.
The reality is, however, there a few items in the life of a Christian that are more tangible and practical than the development and implementation of a biblical worldview. Granted, putting together a workable worldview involves dealing with intellectual abstractions, but even these cognitive pursuits have their base in every day living. For it is our worldview that gives our lives meaning, purpose, and direction. Further, it is our worldview that forms the basis for our decision making process. Few things are more “down to earth” than these issues.
The fact is, we all have a worldview whether we realize it or not. And it is therein the problem arises. Chances are, if we are unaware of the dominant worldview we operate from, then it is a good bet that we are also unaware of how our worldview was formed. Once you realize how vitally important a worldview is, hopefully you will come to see that you can no longer leave this process to chance or random development.
Christian researcher George Barna makes the following observations regarding worldviews:
*Everyone has a worldview. Relatively few have a coherent worldview or are able to articulate it clearly.
*Most people don’t consider their worldview to be a central, defining element of their life, although it is.
*People spend surprisingly little time intentionally considering and developing their worldview. More often than not, their worldview development process is one of unconscious evolution and acceptance. They allow it to evolve and sum it up this way: “Whatever.”
On several occasions I have received either comments or emails from readers of this site, stating in one way or another that they cannot "figure me out." Most of these readers are cordial and genuine in writing to me, but for some reason or another, I don't seem to fit well into whatever box they might be trying to squeeze my thought into. My advice to these friends is this: "Better get a shoe horn."
The fact is, I guess, I am just a bit of a theological maverick. I have found over the years that labels are, at least for the most part, meaningless. Some folks consider themselves to be conservative believers, while others take pride in being called liberal. Others are fundamentalists and yet others are emergent. I suspect that some of my readers' confusion stems from the fact that I have beliefs that bridge these many Christian camps and, as I said, I can't be pigeon holed. And guess what? I think that's a positive thing.
Let me explain.
Emerson once said that "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." One of the things I think he meant by this statement was that, if you allow an external source to define your beliefs, you are often forced compromise the integrity of your mind in order to remain consistent with whatever the school of thought you might be identified with.
For example, if you consider yourself to be a fundamentalist you readily understand that fundamentalists believe in the Virgin Birth. As a self-identified fundamentalist, you realize that you, too, should believe in the Virgin Birth. This state of affairs is no real problem unless you find that you don't really believe in the Virgin Birth. Now you have a dilemma on you hands. The way many folks solve this conundrum is to either say that they do, in fact, believe in the Virgin Birth when they really don't or they convince themselves they believe in it, even if they don't. The result is the person in question has compromised the integrity of his or her mind. In order to be consistent with a pre-defined worldview, the person claims to or pretends to believe in something he or she does not believe in.
The other end of the theological perspective has equal problems. Let's say you are a very liberal Christian. You have read Spong, Borg, Crossan, Tillich, and all the right authors. Of course, liberals don't believe in the deity of Jesus, at least most of them don't. But what happens if you discover that you do believe in the deity of Jesus. Well, now you have the same problem as the fundamentalist discussed in the previous paragraph. In order to be consistent with what a liberal is supposed to believe, you compromise and even convince yourself that Jesus was just another "great moral teacher" and your problem is solved. Unfortunately, now you have a bigger problem. Your integrity is gone.
I can speak of these issues with a certain amount of certainty and at least a modicum of clarity because I have, as they say, been there - done that. By the grace of God, there came a time when I got fed up with having others determine the content of my worldview and went on a quest to figure out just what it was that I really did believe. I won't bore you with the details of my search except to say that as things progressed, I felt more at ease because I understood what I actually thought was true, rather than trying to force myself into a pair of theological shoes that were designed for someone else.
Before traveling any farther down this road, let me say a few words on why I believe the development of a biblical worldview is essential. Further, once we have formulated such a worldview, it is even more effective to apply it to our daily living. A biblical worldview is vital for the effective Christian life. As believers, our worldview is to serve the foundational purpose of providing a matrix through which we can filter our life experiences and, perhaps even more important, provide a framework for our decision making. Just from these few facts it is obvious that a biblical worldview is to be much more than a pile of theological clutter that we stuff into the corner of the mind and forget about. On the contrary, a biblical worldview gives meaning and purpose to the events of our lives.
I have come to look at the simplest yet most complete definition of a worldview as follows: A biblical worldview is one in which we think like Jesus. Having a biblical worldview, in a sense, makes life easier and harder at the same time. Easier because we have sound scriptural guidelines that help us make everyday decisions; harder in that we often resist putting what we know to be correct into action. Further, I firmly believe that in order to implement a biblical worldview we have to not only think like Jesus, but act like Jesus as well. In order to do this, we have to engage in the types of practices that he engaged in. Namely, we have to make a consecrated effort to practice spiritual disciplines, especially prayer, on a regular basis. If Jesus needed to do this, we certainly do. George Barna describes his decision to discern and formulate his worldview:
For years I was scared off by the term “biblical worldview.” It had connotations of breadth and depth that were overwhelming. But the more I realized that my own Christian life was a haphazard series of disjointed choices only marginally and inconsistently influenced by my faith, the more determined I became to get serious about worldview development.
I concur with what Barna is saying here. In my own case, I came to realize that my daily thoughts, actions, and decisions were only marginally influenced by my faith. I also sensed that this is true for the vast majority of professing Christians and this may be one of the main reasons the modern church is so weak in the demonstration of its faith. Ultimately, this lack of worldview development and a concurrent walk of faith that is consistent with that worldview take us into the realm of personal integrity and evangelism. If we do not walk in a manner consistent with our faith, then we are not being true to who we really are. We lack personal integrity. Second, when others see us walking in ways contrary to what we profess to believe, it gives Christianity a bad name. It is even easier for non-Christians to use the time worn excuse of “not wanting to associate with hypocrites.”
Most non-Christian expect a lot more from us than God does. It is quite easy for those outside the faith to point to our failures, our scandals, and our myriad shortcomings. What many of these folks fail to understand is that Christians are still all too human.
As stated at the beginning of this essay, many readers find themselves asking, "Where is this guy coming from?" "Is he a liberal or is he a conservative?" The fact is, I am neither and both. I am just who I am and, like Popeye, that's who I am.
I would also say that it is important to know that I full well understand that I am really quite limited in the scope of my knowledge. William Barclay, the great biblical scholar, once said he had, at best, a "second-rate mind." I have read extensively in Barclay's works and can say without reservation that if his mind is second-rate, then mine is surely way on down the scale in double-digits. I have come to understand that I can, in fact, be wrong. That is one reason why I don't involve myself in theological arguments or nitpick over the finer points of doctrine. What do I know? Further, for me to strongly insist that someone else has a view that is erroneous smells of arrogance when you get right down to it.
Some Christians feel they have been called to be "Watchmen on the Walls," beating the bushes in search of heretics and other misfits and nomads within the Body of Christ. Perhaps this is, indeed, a genuine calling and, if it is, I pray they live according to that lofty purpose. I am not one of them, however. I don't think I have ever labeled anyone a heretic and doubt that I ever will. Why not, you ask? The fact is, when you get down to the honest truth of the matter, I don't have enough knowledge to make that judgment. I am not giving you a false humility here. I am speaking from my heart. I, like many others, see through a glass darkly and have far too many doctrinal logs in my eye to start picking at the theological specks in someone else's.
One other thing needs to be mentioned as well. Doctrinal and religious debates, as I mentioned in another article posted a few months back, tend to get a bit testy. Rarely have I seen one of these discussions go on for long before folks start launching verbal grenades that have little to do with the point they were originally trying to make.
I avoid these discussions and debates like poison ivy for the following reasons. First, as already mentioned, my knowledge is too small for me to be the final arbiter of any doctrinal dispute. Secondly, these kinds of conflicts promote discord rather than unity, and it is unity we are called to, not discord. Finally, I stay away from doctrinal fights because these sorts of disputes often put people in the position of having a choice to be "right" or to be "kind." I'll opt for kindness every time.
End of Part One
I have come to the conclusion that few endeavors in the life of a Christian are as important as the process of “worldview development.” The fact is, many Christians have never given thought to the significance of one’s worldview and, of the few that have taken up the subject, most quickly put it aside in favor of more tangible and practical pursuits.
The reality is, however, there a few items in the life of a Christian that are more tangible and practical than the development and implementation of a biblical worldview. Granted, putting together a workable worldview involves dealing with intellectual abstractions, but even these cognitive pursuits have their base in every day living. For it is our worldview that gives our lives meaning, purpose, and direction. Further, it is our worldview that forms the basis for our decision making process. Few things are more “down to earth” than these issues.
The fact is, we all have a worldview whether we realize it or not. And it is therein the problem arises. Chances are, if we are unaware of the dominant worldview we operate from, then it is a good bet that we are also unaware of how our worldview was formed. Once you realize how vitally important a worldview is, hopefully you will come to see that you can no longer leave this process to chance or random development.
Christian researcher George Barna makes the following observations regarding worldviews:
*Everyone has a worldview. Relatively few have a coherent worldview or are able to articulate it clearly.
*Most people don’t consider their worldview to be a central, defining element of their life, although it is.
*People spend surprisingly little time intentionally considering and developing their worldview. More often than not, their worldview development process is one of unconscious evolution and acceptance. They allow it to evolve and sum it up this way: “Whatever.”
On several occasions I have received either comments or emails from readers of this site, stating in one way or another that they cannot "figure me out." Most of these readers are cordial and genuine in writing to me, but for some reason or another, I don't seem to fit well into whatever box they might be trying to squeeze my thought into. My advice to these friends is this: "Better get a shoe horn."
The fact is, I guess, I am just a bit of a theological maverick. I have found over the years that labels are, at least for the most part, meaningless. Some folks consider themselves to be conservative believers, while others take pride in being called liberal. Others are fundamentalists and yet others are emergent. I suspect that some of my readers' confusion stems from the fact that I have beliefs that bridge these many Christian camps and, as I said, I can't be pigeon holed. And guess what? I think that's a positive thing.
Let me explain.
Emerson once said that "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." One of the things I think he meant by this statement was that, if you allow an external source to define your beliefs, you are often forced compromise the integrity of your mind in order to remain consistent with whatever the school of thought you might be identified with.
For example, if you consider yourself to be a fundamentalist you readily understand that fundamentalists believe in the Virgin Birth. As a self-identified fundamentalist, you realize that you, too, should believe in the Virgin Birth. This state of affairs is no real problem unless you find that you don't really believe in the Virgin Birth. Now you have a dilemma on you hands. The way many folks solve this conundrum is to either say that they do, in fact, believe in the Virgin Birth when they really don't or they convince themselves they believe in it, even if they don't. The result is the person in question has compromised the integrity of his or her mind. In order to be consistent with a pre-defined worldview, the person claims to or pretends to believe in something he or she does not believe in.
The other end of the theological perspective has equal problems. Let's say you are a very liberal Christian. You have read Spong, Borg, Crossan, Tillich, and all the right authors. Of course, liberals don't believe in the deity of Jesus, at least most of them don't. But what happens if you discover that you do believe in the deity of Jesus. Well, now you have the same problem as the fundamentalist discussed in the previous paragraph. In order to be consistent with what a liberal is supposed to believe, you compromise and even convince yourself that Jesus was just another "great moral teacher" and your problem is solved. Unfortunately, now you have a bigger problem. Your integrity is gone.
I can speak of these issues with a certain amount of certainty and at least a modicum of clarity because I have, as they say, been there - done that. By the grace of God, there came a time when I got fed up with having others determine the content of my worldview and went on a quest to figure out just what it was that I really did believe. I won't bore you with the details of my search except to say that as things progressed, I felt more at ease because I understood what I actually thought was true, rather than trying to force myself into a pair of theological shoes that were designed for someone else.
Before traveling any farther down this road, let me say a few words on why I believe the development of a biblical worldview is essential. Further, once we have formulated such a worldview, it is even more effective to apply it to our daily living. A biblical worldview is vital for the effective Christian life. As believers, our worldview is to serve the foundational purpose of providing a matrix through which we can filter our life experiences and, perhaps even more important, provide a framework for our decision making. Just from these few facts it is obvious that a biblical worldview is to be much more than a pile of theological clutter that we stuff into the corner of the mind and forget about. On the contrary, a biblical worldview gives meaning and purpose to the events of our lives.
I have come to look at the simplest yet most complete definition of a worldview as follows: A biblical worldview is one in which we think like Jesus. Having a biblical worldview, in a sense, makes life easier and harder at the same time. Easier because we have sound scriptural guidelines that help us make everyday decisions; harder in that we often resist putting what we know to be correct into action. Further, I firmly believe that in order to implement a biblical worldview we have to not only think like Jesus, but act like Jesus as well. In order to do this, we have to engage in the types of practices that he engaged in. Namely, we have to make a consecrated effort to practice spiritual disciplines, especially prayer, on a regular basis. If Jesus needed to do this, we certainly do. George Barna describes his decision to discern and formulate his worldview:
For years I was scared off by the term “biblical worldview.” It had connotations of breadth and depth that were overwhelming. But the more I realized that my own Christian life was a haphazard series of disjointed choices only marginally and inconsistently influenced by my faith, the more determined I became to get serious about worldview development.
I concur with what Barna is saying here. In my own case, I came to realize that my daily thoughts, actions, and decisions were only marginally influenced by my faith. I also sensed that this is true for the vast majority of professing Christians and this may be one of the main reasons the modern church is so weak in the demonstration of its faith. Ultimately, this lack of worldview development and a concurrent walk of faith that is consistent with that worldview take us into the realm of personal integrity and evangelism. If we do not walk in a manner consistent with our faith, then we are not being true to who we really are. We lack personal integrity. Second, when others see us walking in ways contrary to what we profess to believe, it gives Christianity a bad name. It is even easier for non-Christians to use the time worn excuse of “not wanting to associate with hypocrites.”
Most non-Christian expect a lot more from us than God does. It is quite easy for those outside the faith to point to our failures, our scandals, and our myriad shortcomings. What many of these folks fail to understand is that Christians are still all too human.
As stated at the beginning of this essay, many readers find themselves asking, "Where is this guy coming from?" "Is he a liberal or is he a conservative?" The fact is, I am neither and both. I am just who I am and, like Popeye, that's who I am.
I would also say that it is important to know that I full well understand that I am really quite limited in the scope of my knowledge. William Barclay, the great biblical scholar, once said he had, at best, a "second-rate mind." I have read extensively in Barclay's works and can say without reservation that if his mind is second-rate, then mine is surely way on down the scale in double-digits. I have come to understand that I can, in fact, be wrong. That is one reason why I don't involve myself in theological arguments or nitpick over the finer points of doctrine. What do I know? Further, for me to strongly insist that someone else has a view that is erroneous smells of arrogance when you get right down to it.
Some Christians feel they have been called to be "Watchmen on the Walls," beating the bushes in search of heretics and other misfits and nomads within the Body of Christ. Perhaps this is, indeed, a genuine calling and, if it is, I pray they live according to that lofty purpose. I am not one of them, however. I don't think I have ever labeled anyone a heretic and doubt that I ever will. Why not, you ask? The fact is, when you get down to the honest truth of the matter, I don't have enough knowledge to make that judgment. I am not giving you a false humility here. I am speaking from my heart. I, like many others, see through a glass darkly and have far too many doctrinal logs in my eye to start picking at the theological specks in someone else's.
One other thing needs to be mentioned as well. Doctrinal and religious debates, as I mentioned in another article posted a few months back, tend to get a bit testy. Rarely have I seen one of these discussions go on for long before folks start launching verbal grenades that have little to do with the point they were originally trying to make.
I avoid these discussions and debates like poison ivy for the following reasons. First, as already mentioned, my knowledge is too small for me to be the final arbiter of any doctrinal dispute. Secondly, these kinds of conflicts promote discord rather than unity, and it is unity we are called to, not discord. Finally, I stay away from doctrinal fights because these sorts of disputes often put people in the position of having a choice to be "right" or to be "kind." I'll opt for kindness every time.
End of Part One
Friday, September 26, 2008
Are You Open For Business?
Mick Turner
Our culture, it seems, is on some kind of spiritual quest. As I cruise about the Internet these days I often encounter articles, web sites, and discussion groups throwing about the term “spirituality.” With increasing frequency I also find sincere seekers, including professed Christians, attempting to define what true spirituality is. Some of the definitions are profound while others are more arcane than the tax code.
For Christians, the definition of true spirituality should not be a mystery. The meaning of the word, given to us by Jesus with alarming clarity, may not be the answer we are looking for. The definition of spirituality provided by the Lord had nothing to do with esoteric philosophical speculations, nor did it encompass the need for expanded knowledge of a multi-dimensional universe. On the contrary, Jesus told us what real spirituality was in a very direct and precise manner. He didn’t explain it to us; he showed us.
Jesus gave a new definition of what true spirituality consisted of when, as described in the 13th Chapter of John’s Gospel, he shocked his disciples by performing the lowly act of cleansing their dirty, dusty, and most likely, fetid feet. In this act, Jesus then said that he had provided an example. In his words:
I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you… (John 13:14)
As Christ-followers, we are called to no less. We are called to the ministry of the towel. For the Christian, that is the meaning of spirituality. We are to be of service. Everything else, no matter how profound, is superstructure.
At its most fundamental level, proactive service, motivated by love and compassion, is what incarnational Christianity is all about. No matter what setting in which we find a need to be addressed, we are to obey and go. No matter how filthy, grimy, or smelly, we are to take up our towel and basin and hit the ground running. This is our calling and this is our duty. This is what Christ did and we are to do no less.
Even as sincere believers with a genuine desire to manifest active Christian love to our hurting world, we often complicate this issue of service to an extreme. “What is my true mission?” we often ask ourselves. “Is helping with this situation something I am gifted to do?” Other times we vacillate by comparing ourselves to others. “Are there other people far more skilled than I to help with this?” Moses tried this approach and God didn’t buy it. Although there is nothing wrong with assessing our talents and gifts, we need to realize in any situation, there is some type of service we can provide. There is at least some need we can meet. Just about anyone can fold chairs, clean a kitchen, drive a van, or deliver food.
At the end of the day, this issue of Christian service boils down to one word: availability.
We must each look into our hearts and, with the help of the Holy Spirit, ask ourselves: Am I available to be used by God? We need to be rigorously honest with ourselves in answering this all-important question. If we answer in the negative, then we need to explore the reasons why we feel we cannot currently follow Christ’s call to service. If we answer in the affirmative, then we need to find a place to serve, a way to serve, and get on with it. It is of vital importance that we keep in mind that we are Christ’s representatives here in this broken world. We are his hands, his feet, and his heart. And, we are his agents no matter where we are. Gary Thomas explains how this has come to work in his life:
Once I begin surrendering my body to be transformed, I become a living and breathing center of possibility. I become a force that God can use to impact the world. This truth teaches me to see my life as a call to represent Christ wherever I go, whether it is at a high school basketball game, a family get-together, the dreaded Department of Motor Vehicles office, a local Starbucks, or my own home. Regardless of my location, I can live with a sense of offering myself up to God so that he can encourage his children and reach out to the lost.
Individual Christians are not alone in over-thinking the issue of service. Entire congregations can do the same thing. Instead of diving in and providing immediate relief or help to those in need, churches often choose to conduct exhaustive investigations and hold endless committee meetings, trying to design a program that will address a community need. Again, research and planning are essential, but not at the expense of allowing people to suffer while we weigh our options. Jerry Cook, in his informative book The Monday Morning Church, strikes at the heart of the issue:
I am convinced that as Christians we are not about programs. We’re not about bigger or better blessings. We’re about responding to people who call for help because their world is falling apart. These individuals aren’t looking to be converted – they’re looking for help! Being their help – by being the presence of Christ in their lives – is the only thing we’re about. Everything else we do is secondary and can even detour us from carrying out the true purpose of the church…You are filled with the Spirit of God. You are living in this window in time called the last days. You are where you are because God has strategically placed you there. The question is, are you open for business?
Cook makes a poignant statement here and asks the pivotal question, a question that each of us must answer with truth and honesty: Am I open for business?
Each of us must find somewhere to begin his or her own unique mission, in whatever setting God has placed us. So, again, where do we begin? Why not start where Christ himself began? As he picked up the Holy Scriptures in the synagogue at Nazareth he spoke clearly and without reservation, echoing his Father’s words from the 61st chapter of Isaiah. Christ said he had left his comfort zone in the spiritual realm and incarnated on this fallen planet in order:
To bind up the broken hearted
To proclaim liberty to the captives
To comfort all who mourn
To give them beauty for ashes,
The oil of joy for mourning
The garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness.
Surely, these words pertain to someone or some situation you are aware of. Are you aware of anyone who is broken hearted or held captive by some form of addiction or behavior? Do you know someone who is in dire need of comfort at this time? Is there anyone in your family, your church or your neighborhood who is in need of a little beauty and joy in life; maybe someone who needs help with depression or some other type of spiritual heaviness?
As stated earlier, the first salient question is not so much “How shall I go about doing good?” No, the question is, “Are you open for business?”
Are you ready to become someone God can use? Are you ready to become, in the words of Gary Thomas, a living and breathing center of possibility?
Our culture, it seems, is on some kind of spiritual quest. As I cruise about the Internet these days I often encounter articles, web sites, and discussion groups throwing about the term “spirituality.” With increasing frequency I also find sincere seekers, including professed Christians, attempting to define what true spirituality is. Some of the definitions are profound while others are more arcane than the tax code.
For Christians, the definition of true spirituality should not be a mystery. The meaning of the word, given to us by Jesus with alarming clarity, may not be the answer we are looking for. The definition of spirituality provided by the Lord had nothing to do with esoteric philosophical speculations, nor did it encompass the need for expanded knowledge of a multi-dimensional universe. On the contrary, Jesus told us what real spirituality was in a very direct and precise manner. He didn’t explain it to us; he showed us.
Jesus gave a new definition of what true spirituality consisted of when, as described in the 13th Chapter of John’s Gospel, he shocked his disciples by performing the lowly act of cleansing their dirty, dusty, and most likely, fetid feet. In this act, Jesus then said that he had provided an example. In his words:
I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you… (John 13:14)
As Christ-followers, we are called to no less. We are called to the ministry of the towel. For the Christian, that is the meaning of spirituality. We are to be of service. Everything else, no matter how profound, is superstructure.
At its most fundamental level, proactive service, motivated by love and compassion, is what incarnational Christianity is all about. No matter what setting in which we find a need to be addressed, we are to obey and go. No matter how filthy, grimy, or smelly, we are to take up our towel and basin and hit the ground running. This is our calling and this is our duty. This is what Christ did and we are to do no less.
Even as sincere believers with a genuine desire to manifest active Christian love to our hurting world, we often complicate this issue of service to an extreme. “What is my true mission?” we often ask ourselves. “Is helping with this situation something I am gifted to do?” Other times we vacillate by comparing ourselves to others. “Are there other people far more skilled than I to help with this?” Moses tried this approach and God didn’t buy it. Although there is nothing wrong with assessing our talents and gifts, we need to realize in any situation, there is some type of service we can provide. There is at least some need we can meet. Just about anyone can fold chairs, clean a kitchen, drive a van, or deliver food.
At the end of the day, this issue of Christian service boils down to one word: availability.
We must each look into our hearts and, with the help of the Holy Spirit, ask ourselves: Am I available to be used by God? We need to be rigorously honest with ourselves in answering this all-important question. If we answer in the negative, then we need to explore the reasons why we feel we cannot currently follow Christ’s call to service. If we answer in the affirmative, then we need to find a place to serve, a way to serve, and get on with it. It is of vital importance that we keep in mind that we are Christ’s representatives here in this broken world. We are his hands, his feet, and his heart. And, we are his agents no matter where we are. Gary Thomas explains how this has come to work in his life:
Once I begin surrendering my body to be transformed, I become a living and breathing center of possibility. I become a force that God can use to impact the world. This truth teaches me to see my life as a call to represent Christ wherever I go, whether it is at a high school basketball game, a family get-together, the dreaded Department of Motor Vehicles office, a local Starbucks, or my own home. Regardless of my location, I can live with a sense of offering myself up to God so that he can encourage his children and reach out to the lost.
Individual Christians are not alone in over-thinking the issue of service. Entire congregations can do the same thing. Instead of diving in and providing immediate relief or help to those in need, churches often choose to conduct exhaustive investigations and hold endless committee meetings, trying to design a program that will address a community need. Again, research and planning are essential, but not at the expense of allowing people to suffer while we weigh our options. Jerry Cook, in his informative book The Monday Morning Church, strikes at the heart of the issue:
I am convinced that as Christians we are not about programs. We’re not about bigger or better blessings. We’re about responding to people who call for help because their world is falling apart. These individuals aren’t looking to be converted – they’re looking for help! Being their help – by being the presence of Christ in their lives – is the only thing we’re about. Everything else we do is secondary and can even detour us from carrying out the true purpose of the church…You are filled with the Spirit of God. You are living in this window in time called the last days. You are where you are because God has strategically placed you there. The question is, are you open for business?
Cook makes a poignant statement here and asks the pivotal question, a question that each of us must answer with truth and honesty: Am I open for business?
Each of us must find somewhere to begin his or her own unique mission, in whatever setting God has placed us. So, again, where do we begin? Why not start where Christ himself began? As he picked up the Holy Scriptures in the synagogue at Nazareth he spoke clearly and without reservation, echoing his Father’s words from the 61st chapter of Isaiah. Christ said he had left his comfort zone in the spiritual realm and incarnated on this fallen planet in order:
To bind up the broken hearted
To proclaim liberty to the captives
To comfort all who mourn
To give them beauty for ashes,
The oil of joy for mourning
The garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness.
Surely, these words pertain to someone or some situation you are aware of. Are you aware of anyone who is broken hearted or held captive by some form of addiction or behavior? Do you know someone who is in dire need of comfort at this time? Is there anyone in your family, your church or your neighborhood who is in need of a little beauty and joy in life; maybe someone who needs help with depression or some other type of spiritual heaviness?
As stated earlier, the first salient question is not so much “How shall I go about doing good?” No, the question is, “Are you open for business?”
Are you ready to become someone God can use? Are you ready to become, in the words of Gary Thomas, a living and breathing center of possibility?
The Centrality of the Kingdom Message
Mick Turner
The contemporary Church often appears to be operating in a quandary, looking much like a dog chasing its tail. Christian leaders spend valuable energy and needed resources in an attempt to define the primary mission of the Body of Christ within the context of our post-modern, post-Christian world. Although this is an important task and highly relevant given the dwindling impact of the Church on contemporary culture, I have come to believe that the critical mission of today’s Church is not a mystery wrapped inside a riddle.
Even though the specifics of carrying out the Church’s mission may change from age to age, one central purpose remains constant. This aspect of the Church’s work is obvious to anyone who undertakes even a cursory study of the life of Jesus and has remained constant throughout the centuries. Further, it will continue to be of primary importance until the Lord’s return and should always serve as the North Star for the Body of Christ during times of challenge and change.
Underlying all of our efforts as the Body of Christ is the notion of working along with God to establish the “Kingdom.” I can’t stress this notion of Kingdom enough and, if you take a close look at the gospels, neither could Christ. His first public statement was “Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.” After beginning this way, Christ repeatedly stressed that his mission was to inaugurate the Kingdom. As ongoing agents of incarnation, it is now our mission to pick up where Christ left off. This is the foundational mission of the church. Even the great commission is aimed at this and this only: Bringing God’s Kingdom to Earth.
The coming of the Kingdom is really the heart of the gospel. The forgiveness of sins and the work on the cross, although of central significance, is not the heart of the gospel. It is not that which brings life to the body. No, it is the coming of the Kingdom that constitutes the life of the gospel. Unfortunately, the church, especially since the reformation in general and Calvinist theology in particular, has primarily defined the gospel in terms of the remission of sins by the work of Christ. Again, I am not downplaying the importance of this. All I am saying is that it is not the core of the gospel. Jesus repeatedly stressed the coming of the Kingdom. The remission of sins is part of this, but it is far from the whole enchilada.
If Jesus had composed a mission statement prior to departing the spiritual realm it would undoubtedly read: Re-establish my Father’s kingdom on earth. Wherever he traveled, the Lord preached the coming of the kingdom. The fact that today’s pastors seldom preach on the kingdom is a conundrum to the astute student of the gospels. The majority of messages from the pulpit these days are more concerned with being born again as opposed to the establishment of the kingdom. In the entire recorded narratives of Jesus’ life, he only mentioned being born again one time, and that in private under the cloak of darkness in response to a query by Nicodemus. Contrast this with the number of times Christ spoke of the kingdom.
I find the Church’s lack of focus on establishing the kingdom even more remarkable when considering other popular pulpit themes. A few months back I was conducting research on the growth of several denominations in the county where I live. This research necessitated my visiting eight different congregations over an extended period of time and provided an opportunity to hear firsthand the kind of topics preachers from a variety of denominations were expounding upon. Frankly, I was amazed. I heard at least four sermons on prosperity, four more on the reality of sin, three on the importance of speaking in tongues, two on how speaking in tongues was the work of Satan, at least two sermons detailing the importance of voting Republican in the upcoming 2008 election, and one meandering, 40-minute bombast without a discernable core.
On no occasion did I hear a sermon or even a Sunday School class that had as its central element the establishment of God’s kingdom. I am not the sharpest tool in the shed and, at best, have a second-rate mind. Still, I can see that there is something amiss here.
Granted, the Body of Christ in America faces numerous challenging issues at the dawn of the new century, however, the response to these issues must take place in the context of Jesus’ kingdom message. Our mission as Christians, both individually and corporately, is to continue incarnating Christ’s mission in the world. As Jesus stressed the kingdom, so must we. We have no greater priority.
Dr. Myles Munroe, author of several books dealing with God’s kingdom, echoes the centrality of the kingdom agenda for today’s Church:
How important to the Body of Christ is the message of the Kingdom of God? Frankly, we have nothing else to teach. The message of the Kingdom is good news, and the Church exists to proclaim it. If we are doing our job, everything we are about will be Kingdom focused: every sermon we preach, every Bible study we teach, every ministry we perform, every activity we accomplish, and every worship service we celebrate…The Kingdom of God must be our highest priority; Jesus gave us no other commission.As individual members of the Body of Christ, it is our duty to share the kingdom message at every opportunity. In doing so, however, we must take care to present Jesus’ kingdom manifesto is ways that are relative to today’s world. The concept of “kingdom” has little meaning to most people, especially in the West. Perhaps it is time to seek new metaphors for explaining kingdom concepts.
Another critical factor in exposing our culture to the radical manifesto that Christ taught is to be straightforward about its content. Jesus called for a new system that ran counter to that of the world, not only in his time, but in ours as well. He called for compassion, justice, caring, service, forgiveness, and a host of other themes that are both startling and challenging. As we go about sharing Jesus’ vision, we must also be honest about how the Church, for whatever reasons, has diluted, distorted, and at times deceived in its presentation of the real “gospel” of Christ.
Further, it is incumbent upon us to lovingly confront the leaders of our churches if they have wandered too far a field from the kingdom context. By taking proactive measures to refocus our churches on the centrality of the kingdom message, we can help foster a supportive foundation for the Church as it goes about meeting the significant challenges of our world. Only by taking this course of action can the dog finally realize the folly of running in circles after something that is constantly just out of reach.
© L.D. Turner 2008/All Rights Reserved
The contemporary Church often appears to be operating in a quandary, looking much like a dog chasing its tail. Christian leaders spend valuable energy and needed resources in an attempt to define the primary mission of the Body of Christ within the context of our post-modern, post-Christian world. Although this is an important task and highly relevant given the dwindling impact of the Church on contemporary culture, I have come to believe that the critical mission of today’s Church is not a mystery wrapped inside a riddle.
Even though the specifics of carrying out the Church’s mission may change from age to age, one central purpose remains constant. This aspect of the Church’s work is obvious to anyone who undertakes even a cursory study of the life of Jesus and has remained constant throughout the centuries. Further, it will continue to be of primary importance until the Lord’s return and should always serve as the North Star for the Body of Christ during times of challenge and change.
Underlying all of our efforts as the Body of Christ is the notion of working along with God to establish the “Kingdom.” I can’t stress this notion of Kingdom enough and, if you take a close look at the gospels, neither could Christ. His first public statement was “Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.” After beginning this way, Christ repeatedly stressed that his mission was to inaugurate the Kingdom. As ongoing agents of incarnation, it is now our mission to pick up where Christ left off. This is the foundational mission of the church. Even the great commission is aimed at this and this only: Bringing God’s Kingdom to Earth.
The coming of the Kingdom is really the heart of the gospel. The forgiveness of sins and the work on the cross, although of central significance, is not the heart of the gospel. It is not that which brings life to the body. No, it is the coming of the Kingdom that constitutes the life of the gospel. Unfortunately, the church, especially since the reformation in general and Calvinist theology in particular, has primarily defined the gospel in terms of the remission of sins by the work of Christ. Again, I am not downplaying the importance of this. All I am saying is that it is not the core of the gospel. Jesus repeatedly stressed the coming of the Kingdom. The remission of sins is part of this, but it is far from the whole enchilada.
If Jesus had composed a mission statement prior to departing the spiritual realm it would undoubtedly read: Re-establish my Father’s kingdom on earth. Wherever he traveled, the Lord preached the coming of the kingdom. The fact that today’s pastors seldom preach on the kingdom is a conundrum to the astute student of the gospels. The majority of messages from the pulpit these days are more concerned with being born again as opposed to the establishment of the kingdom. In the entire recorded narratives of Jesus’ life, he only mentioned being born again one time, and that in private under the cloak of darkness in response to a query by Nicodemus. Contrast this with the number of times Christ spoke of the kingdom.
I find the Church’s lack of focus on establishing the kingdom even more remarkable when considering other popular pulpit themes. A few months back I was conducting research on the growth of several denominations in the county where I live. This research necessitated my visiting eight different congregations over an extended period of time and provided an opportunity to hear firsthand the kind of topics preachers from a variety of denominations were expounding upon. Frankly, I was amazed. I heard at least four sermons on prosperity, four more on the reality of sin, three on the importance of speaking in tongues, two on how speaking in tongues was the work of Satan, at least two sermons detailing the importance of voting Republican in the upcoming 2008 election, and one meandering, 40-minute bombast without a discernable core.
On no occasion did I hear a sermon or even a Sunday School class that had as its central element the establishment of God’s kingdom. I am not the sharpest tool in the shed and, at best, have a second-rate mind. Still, I can see that there is something amiss here.
Granted, the Body of Christ in America faces numerous challenging issues at the dawn of the new century, however, the response to these issues must take place in the context of Jesus’ kingdom message. Our mission as Christians, both individually and corporately, is to continue incarnating Christ’s mission in the world. As Jesus stressed the kingdom, so must we. We have no greater priority.
Dr. Myles Munroe, author of several books dealing with God’s kingdom, echoes the centrality of the kingdom agenda for today’s Church:
How important to the Body of Christ is the message of the Kingdom of God? Frankly, we have nothing else to teach. The message of the Kingdom is good news, and the Church exists to proclaim it. If we are doing our job, everything we are about will be Kingdom focused: every sermon we preach, every Bible study we teach, every ministry we perform, every activity we accomplish, and every worship service we celebrate…The Kingdom of God must be our highest priority; Jesus gave us no other commission.As individual members of the Body of Christ, it is our duty to share the kingdom message at every opportunity. In doing so, however, we must take care to present Jesus’ kingdom manifesto is ways that are relative to today’s world. The concept of “kingdom” has little meaning to most people, especially in the West. Perhaps it is time to seek new metaphors for explaining kingdom concepts.
Another critical factor in exposing our culture to the radical manifesto that Christ taught is to be straightforward about its content. Jesus called for a new system that ran counter to that of the world, not only in his time, but in ours as well. He called for compassion, justice, caring, service, forgiveness, and a host of other themes that are both startling and challenging. As we go about sharing Jesus’ vision, we must also be honest about how the Church, for whatever reasons, has diluted, distorted, and at times deceived in its presentation of the real “gospel” of Christ.
Further, it is incumbent upon us to lovingly confront the leaders of our churches if they have wandered too far a field from the kingdom context. By taking proactive measures to refocus our churches on the centrality of the kingdom message, we can help foster a supportive foundation for the Church as it goes about meeting the significant challenges of our world. Only by taking this course of action can the dog finally realize the folly of running in circles after something that is constantly just out of reach.
© L.D. Turner 2008/All Rights Reserved
Monday, September 22, 2008
The Fragrance of God
Mick Turner
This morning when I woke up and shook the fog out of my head, I became aware that I was thinking back on an experience I had undergone many years ago. Perhaps I had dreamed about it or it could be that the Sacred Spirit was bringing it to my attention for some reason. As I go through my day I need to be aware of this, in case the Spirit is indeed trying to communicate something to me. I have found that, at least in my case, God often gets messages past my thick mind by speaking to me in this indirect but unmistakable manner.
Sometimes I wish I could hear from God a little more easily. I find myself from time to time wishing that I could just walk out in my back yard first thing in the morning and find God waiting there to talk to me out of a burning bush. I would even settle for a braying donkey. It doesn’t matter so much how he did it, just that it was a little less troublesome and inconsistent.
My old friend Jesse often tells me that God speaks to all of us all of the time, but we rarely have ears to hear. He claims that many people’s dependence upon thing like Bible reading, sermon-listening, and book study have blinded us, or perhaps I should say deafened us, to the crystal clear voice of God. For Jesse, God speaks through three primary media, nature, the inner light and other seekers. It could very well be that Jesse is right when he says we have become so dependent upon the ways we have been instructed to hear God’s voice that we can’t discern his speaking when it comes in other ways.
Jesse reminds me of my grandfather when he talks like this. I have mentioned my grandfather before on this blog. A southern, rural man to the core, my grandfather was devoutly attuned to the rhythms of the natural world. As a child I often marveled at his knowledge, wisdom, and uncanny ability to see things that others couldn’t see. A Quaker and a mystic by birth, from the time he was a teenager my grandfather was a consternation to his parents because of his stubborn resistance to going to First Day Meeting as the Society of Friends called it. “Church” is basically what it was to others. This resistance did not go away once my grandfather reached his adult years and now, rather than to my great-grandparents, his absence became a consternation to his wife, my grandmother.
The reason I mention all of this is that it was often through my grandfather that I learned that God did indeed speak through venues other than the church, the preacher, the Bible, and, in his day, radio-evangelists. I carry to this day one distinct memory of my grandfather’s approach to religion that was for me an epiphany of sorts. I was 12-years-old and our family was visiting my grandparents during the Easter season. Little did I know at the time that this would be a Palm Sunday I would never forget.
As usual, my grandfather had resisted the family’s repeated entreaties that he join them for the Sunday morning meeting at the “Meeting House.” Even more to my surprise, he asked me if I wanted to stay home with him and “help him take care of a few things.” You can’t imagine my delight at this turn of events. I responded that I would love to stay home and help him and that pretty much settled the matter.
After putting out some extra feed for his two mules, my grandfather took me for a walk in the woods adjacent to his farm. Eventually we came to a clearing, a meadow actually, that was dotted with patches of wild flowers. From our vantage point, the meadow seemed to extend forever and the patches of flowers were like explosions of color in a sea of green. As was often the case, we walked and talked about all kinds of things. I had something I wanted to ask him about and finally got around to it, although I was somewhat apprehensive about asking him.
“PaPa,” I began. “Why is it you never go to church with the family? I have only seen you go a couple of times. Do you hate church?”
“No, son….I don’t hate church. In fact, I like it,” he replied, chuckling under his breath. “I just like to spend my Sabbath day being with God.”
I recall being mystified by his answer and, after scratching my head for a minute or two, go around to asking the logical question a 12-year-old boy might ask.
“But church is where God is,” I said. “If you want to be with God, why don’t you go to church? It doesn’t make sense, PaPa.”
“God isn’t in church much these days, son. At least I haven’t seen him there in awhile,” responded PaPa. “At church preachers preach (they were Evangelical Quakers), singers sing, prayers pray, and gossipers gossip. That doesn’t leave much time for God to say anything.”
I remember he paused for quite awhile to let his words sink into my still young mind.
“I figure if I need to be with God, to talk to him and listen to him, I need to come out here where it is quiet,” he continued. “God didn’t build that church, but he sure as hell made these woods and this meadow. I figure if I want to talk to God I need to go where he lives.”
“I think I understand, PaPa,” I recall saying. “But isn’t religion important? My Mom says my religion is the most important part of life and that when I grow up, I can’t live without it.”
After a long silence, my grandfather looked me squarely in the eyes and told me in no uncertain terms what he thought about my question.
“Just keep in mind a few things and it will make your spiritual life easier and less troublesome,” he said. “First, understand that religion doesn’t have anything to do with God, and vice versa.” My grandfather had to explain what vice versa meant. I was only 12.
“Religion is an invention, just like the wheel and the telephone,” PaPa continued. “Spirituality is sometimes a part of religion but most of the time it isn’t. Unlike religion, spirituality is not an invention. It is something as much a part of being human as breathing, sleeping, and sex. All of those things are built into us from the start. So is spirituality. Our job is so make our lives spiritual every day. Religion is supposed to help with that, but most of the time it prevents spirituality, it doesn’t create it.”
I guess my grandfather was one of the early people to be dealing with the religion vs. spirituality conflict. These days the familiar adage about being spiritual but not religious is so commonplace it has lost much of its real impact. I should not be surprised, however, at my grandfather’s words. As I mentioned, he was a Quaker and a mystic throughout his life. In fact, he knew the Quaker mystic Rufus Jones quite well and often told stories about Jones. I never had the opportunity to meet Rufus Jones, although I would have loved to. Jones died in 1948 I think, which was a year before my birth.
As for me, I was thoroughly confused by this time. I struggled to understand what my PaPa had said, especially the business about spirituality and religion. I asked grandfather if he could tell me again about the difference between the two. Here is where the epiphany came in and also where Rufus Jones fits into this story.
“Come over here,” said PaPa as he got up and walked toward one of the flower explosions in the meadow. “Now, pay close attention and I think you will get the picture.”
Grandfather kneeled down and picked an absolutely beautiful bright purple flower. As I knelt beside him, he said, “I want to teach you something Rufus Jones taught me many years ago. This is probably the most beautiful flower in this whole meadow. Imagine this is the church. Sometimes churches can be really beautiful places, inside and out. And the folks inside can be beautiful, too.”
I listened carefully and appreciated the flower, but wasn’t sure what he was getting at.
“Now, hold the flower to your nose and take a good whiff. Smell it deeply.”
Taking a deep breath I held the flower to my nose and smelled of it. Oddly, there was no fragrance, either good or bad.
“There is no smell, PaPa,” I reported.
“Isn’t it strange that a flower so attractive can have no fragrance?” said PaPa. “Churches can be like that as well. Our family goes to a church a lot like that.”
He then picked another flower, not unattractive by any means, but far less striking than the first. He held it to my nose.
“It is wonderful, PaPa,” I said after drinking deeply of the fragrance of this rather ordinary looking flower. “What is it, PaPa?”
“Spirituality,” he said in a serene voice filled with certainty.
© L.D. Turner 2008/All Rights Reserved
This morning when I woke up and shook the fog out of my head, I became aware that I was thinking back on an experience I had undergone many years ago. Perhaps I had dreamed about it or it could be that the Sacred Spirit was bringing it to my attention for some reason. As I go through my day I need to be aware of this, in case the Spirit is indeed trying to communicate something to me. I have found that, at least in my case, God often gets messages past my thick mind by speaking to me in this indirect but unmistakable manner.
Sometimes I wish I could hear from God a little more easily. I find myself from time to time wishing that I could just walk out in my back yard first thing in the morning and find God waiting there to talk to me out of a burning bush. I would even settle for a braying donkey. It doesn’t matter so much how he did it, just that it was a little less troublesome and inconsistent.
My old friend Jesse often tells me that God speaks to all of us all of the time, but we rarely have ears to hear. He claims that many people’s dependence upon thing like Bible reading, sermon-listening, and book study have blinded us, or perhaps I should say deafened us, to the crystal clear voice of God. For Jesse, God speaks through three primary media, nature, the inner light and other seekers. It could very well be that Jesse is right when he says we have become so dependent upon the ways we have been instructed to hear God’s voice that we can’t discern his speaking when it comes in other ways.
Jesse reminds me of my grandfather when he talks like this. I have mentioned my grandfather before on this blog. A southern, rural man to the core, my grandfather was devoutly attuned to the rhythms of the natural world. As a child I often marveled at his knowledge, wisdom, and uncanny ability to see things that others couldn’t see. A Quaker and a mystic by birth, from the time he was a teenager my grandfather was a consternation to his parents because of his stubborn resistance to going to First Day Meeting as the Society of Friends called it. “Church” is basically what it was to others. This resistance did not go away once my grandfather reached his adult years and now, rather than to my great-grandparents, his absence became a consternation to his wife, my grandmother.
The reason I mention all of this is that it was often through my grandfather that I learned that God did indeed speak through venues other than the church, the preacher, the Bible, and, in his day, radio-evangelists. I carry to this day one distinct memory of my grandfather’s approach to religion that was for me an epiphany of sorts. I was 12-years-old and our family was visiting my grandparents during the Easter season. Little did I know at the time that this would be a Palm Sunday I would never forget.
As usual, my grandfather had resisted the family’s repeated entreaties that he join them for the Sunday morning meeting at the “Meeting House.” Even more to my surprise, he asked me if I wanted to stay home with him and “help him take care of a few things.” You can’t imagine my delight at this turn of events. I responded that I would love to stay home and help him and that pretty much settled the matter.
After putting out some extra feed for his two mules, my grandfather took me for a walk in the woods adjacent to his farm. Eventually we came to a clearing, a meadow actually, that was dotted with patches of wild flowers. From our vantage point, the meadow seemed to extend forever and the patches of flowers were like explosions of color in a sea of green. As was often the case, we walked and talked about all kinds of things. I had something I wanted to ask him about and finally got around to it, although I was somewhat apprehensive about asking him.
“PaPa,” I began. “Why is it you never go to church with the family? I have only seen you go a couple of times. Do you hate church?”
“No, son….I don’t hate church. In fact, I like it,” he replied, chuckling under his breath. “I just like to spend my Sabbath day being with God.”
I recall being mystified by his answer and, after scratching my head for a minute or two, go around to asking the logical question a 12-year-old boy might ask.
“But church is where God is,” I said. “If you want to be with God, why don’t you go to church? It doesn’t make sense, PaPa.”
“God isn’t in church much these days, son. At least I haven’t seen him there in awhile,” responded PaPa. “At church preachers preach (they were Evangelical Quakers), singers sing, prayers pray, and gossipers gossip. That doesn’t leave much time for God to say anything.”
I remember he paused for quite awhile to let his words sink into my still young mind.
“I figure if I need to be with God, to talk to him and listen to him, I need to come out here where it is quiet,” he continued. “God didn’t build that church, but he sure as hell made these woods and this meadow. I figure if I want to talk to God I need to go where he lives.”
“I think I understand, PaPa,” I recall saying. “But isn’t religion important? My Mom says my religion is the most important part of life and that when I grow up, I can’t live without it.”
After a long silence, my grandfather looked me squarely in the eyes and told me in no uncertain terms what he thought about my question.
“Just keep in mind a few things and it will make your spiritual life easier and less troublesome,” he said. “First, understand that religion doesn’t have anything to do with God, and vice versa.” My grandfather had to explain what vice versa meant. I was only 12.
“Religion is an invention, just like the wheel and the telephone,” PaPa continued. “Spirituality is sometimes a part of religion but most of the time it isn’t. Unlike religion, spirituality is not an invention. It is something as much a part of being human as breathing, sleeping, and sex. All of those things are built into us from the start. So is spirituality. Our job is so make our lives spiritual every day. Religion is supposed to help with that, but most of the time it prevents spirituality, it doesn’t create it.”
I guess my grandfather was one of the early people to be dealing with the religion vs. spirituality conflict. These days the familiar adage about being spiritual but not religious is so commonplace it has lost much of its real impact. I should not be surprised, however, at my grandfather’s words. As I mentioned, he was a Quaker and a mystic throughout his life. In fact, he knew the Quaker mystic Rufus Jones quite well and often told stories about Jones. I never had the opportunity to meet Rufus Jones, although I would have loved to. Jones died in 1948 I think, which was a year before my birth.
As for me, I was thoroughly confused by this time. I struggled to understand what my PaPa had said, especially the business about spirituality and religion. I asked grandfather if he could tell me again about the difference between the two. Here is where the epiphany came in and also where Rufus Jones fits into this story.
“Come over here,” said PaPa as he got up and walked toward one of the flower explosions in the meadow. “Now, pay close attention and I think you will get the picture.”
Grandfather kneeled down and picked an absolutely beautiful bright purple flower. As I knelt beside him, he said, “I want to teach you something Rufus Jones taught me many years ago. This is probably the most beautiful flower in this whole meadow. Imagine this is the church. Sometimes churches can be really beautiful places, inside and out. And the folks inside can be beautiful, too.”
I listened carefully and appreciated the flower, but wasn’t sure what he was getting at.
“Now, hold the flower to your nose and take a good whiff. Smell it deeply.”
Taking a deep breath I held the flower to my nose and smelled of it. Oddly, there was no fragrance, either good or bad.
“There is no smell, PaPa,” I reported.
“Isn’t it strange that a flower so attractive can have no fragrance?” said PaPa. “Churches can be like that as well. Our family goes to a church a lot like that.”
He then picked another flower, not unattractive by any means, but far less striking than the first. He held it to my nose.
“It is wonderful, PaPa,” I said after drinking deeply of the fragrance of this rather ordinary looking flower. “What is it, PaPa?”
“Spirituality,” he said in a serene voice filled with certainty.
© L.D. Turner 2008/All Rights Reserved
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Post Religious Culture: Paradox and Promise
Mick Turner
These days it is common parlance to state that American culture is now both Post-Modern and Post-Christian. In most ways I suspect this is an accurate statement. Our culture increasingly holds post-modern beliefs as sacred and Christianity, long the bedrock of America’s spiritual life, has receded in terms of status and influence. I would add to these realities a third idea: American culture is increasingly “Post-Religious.”
By using the term post-religious I do not imply that religions no longer exist. Obviously they do. What I imply when using this term to describe American culture centers on the fact that Americans increasingly are pursuing spirituality outside the parameters of institutional religion. The New Age Movement is an example of this phenomenon, but it appears to go much farther than that. It seems the idea that the best way for individuals to advance spiritually is in the context of small groups of like-minded seekers has come of age.
Even adherents of established religious traditions have realized that small group settings are more conducive of authentic spirituality. Many churches break down their membership into such enclaves; small groups of Buddhist pilgrims, loosely affiliate with a major teaching center in another locale, are springing up all across the country; and an increasing number of Yoga groups are forming to deepen members’ awareness of the philosophy behind the postures and practices they regularly perform.
If we indeed are moving toward a post-religious culture, and I believe that we are, there is an interesting paradox in all of this. The fact is that Americans are becoming far more spiritual while at the same time becoming far less religious. I am aware that the phrase “I’m spiritual but not religious” has been uttered so often it has become trite. Still, hidden behind these frequently repeated words there is a distinct reality: While we are becoming less dependent upon organized religion as a culture, we are becoming an increasingly spiritual nation.
Recently, CNN reported that a recent survey of the religious beliefs of Americans revealed a few surprises. Well over 80 percent said that believed in God or a Divine Force; more surprising, a distinct majority stated that they believed that religions other than their own were also paths to salvation.
One can argue that this is a part of the standard post-modern mind set and it is certainly that. However, it also reflects that the formal beliefs of Christian tradition are no longer a strong influence even among its adherents. I am sure fundamentalists, conservatives, and others of an Evangelical ilk will rail against this trend, but I, for one, find it positive. It is my belief that in order to understand current events as well as discern the direction and purpose of the Creator at a specific age in history, we need to look at the world with a wide-angle lens. Only then can we accurately gain a grasp on what is going on around us.
The age in which we live has its own unique purpose. I believe that we are living in a time of increased spiritual energy and how we handle this more intense Divine Light will determine to a large extent how the future unfolds. We have to keep in mind, for example, that the greater the light, the deeper the shadows. That’s why there is so much chaos at the same time there is such great progress.
I am of the belief that Christianity as it has been known and practiced over the last two to three centuries is waning rapidly. New, vital, and dynamic embodiments of the path of Christ are emerging and this trend will continue. I think one important characteristic of the new wineskins that we see taking shape is the emphasis placed on the Divine Laws of the universe and what these laws mean to our walk of faith. Although it may not be totally accurate, it may be possible to say that we are in the early stages of a new Reformation.
The explosive growth of the Christian faith in the southern hemisphere, in China, and in the former Soviet Union is an example that something new is being birthed by God. Further, the rapid growth of the Word of Faith Movement is also an indicator that Christians and non-believers are both seeking a more experiential and practical faith. Granted, the Faith Movement has its problems. However, if one cuts through much of the hoopla and the bells and whistles used by its leaders, the Faith Movement is based on factual divine laws and these laws, when properly applied, do work. I think these trends point to the fact that whatever form the new spirituality takes, it will have a decidedly metaphysical core. In spite of the fears and objections of traditionalists, conservatives, fundamentalists, and most Evangelicals, I am of the firm conviction that this return to the true metaphysics of the gospel is both empowering and overdue.
There are many divergent perspectives on what the major aspects of the universal purpose of this age. These diverse views have components that are in agreement with one another and, at the same time, also have aspects that are in sharp contrast. No matter what view one holds, several things are certain:
• Change is happening on a global scale and it is occurring at a rapidity never seen before.
• This age in which we live presents humankind with tremendous challenges as well as opportunities.
• Boundaries between people, nations, religions, and races are falling.
• Culture is becoming increasingly global in nature.
• The interdependence of all Creation is becoming more apparent.
• Humans are increasingly becoming less religious and more spiritual.
These are but a small sampling of the themes and issues that are taking place around the globe as the first decade of the new century winds to a close. Of particular interest is the last item mentioned: that humans tend to focus less on religion and more on spirituality. The phrase, “I’m spiritual but not religious” has been uttered so frequently that it has now become trite. Still, these words reflect a growing reality in our world. People everywhere are experiencing a deep spiritual hunger and almost universally find that institutional religion will not satisfy that sublime longing.
Religions, by their very nature, will not get the job done. All religions began as an attempt on the part of humans to formalize and standardize the process of raising consciousness to a level adequate to make experiential contact with the Divine Source, no matter how it is defined. All religions began well but have ended poorly. In this age, humankind will of necessity learn to operate in a post-religious context. Formal religions will continue to exist and serve positive purposes, but will not function as a source of spiritual development beyond a certain point. Over the next ten years or so, we will witness the emergence of numerous new wineskins in which the impartation of spiritual teachings will take place. Some of these new wineskins will be highly positive and will serve the unfolding of God’s divine plan. Others will be less than what they should be and, in fact, may do more harm than good. For the individual seeker, discernment is critical.
Far from exhaustive, the following list details a few of the primary issues for this age:
1. Developing and implementing a deeper understanding of how the mind works, especially as in the role of a co-creator. We are to grow more conscious of the power of our thoughts, imaginations, and our spoken words. We are to use these potent tools to further the divine plan – not just to benefit ourselves.
2. This is an age of synergy, where previously separated and diverse phenomena are coming together to create new things that are similar to the past, but much different as well. Key words for this age are synergy, cooperation, community, cohesiveness.
3. In relation to the No. 1 issue regarding the mind, this is an age when humanity is increasingly coming to awareness and application to the primary mental laws. These laws have been around for ages, but now their popularity will grow and expand.
4. In this present age, the body will also take on a greater importance from a spiritual perspective. Areas of study and application will be things like holistic medicine, health and wellness, and specific techniques like yoga, qigong, etc.
If we take an objective look around it is evident that these transformations are already underway. Although progress is uneven, we can see that these changes are happening and it is safe to say that they will continue. One of the primary catalysts for these dramatic transitions into a new level of being is an increased understanding of the mind, what it is, and how it works. A remarkable aspect of this deepening comprehension of our mental functioning is the fact that it is coming from a variety of disciplines including psychology, metaphysics, biology, and physics. The details being revealed are fascinating and somewhat complex. However, we can view the overall parameters of these new insights into our cognitive functioning and how they relate to the emerging post-religious spirituality in a fairly simplistic manner.
We all have within us two seemingly opposing entities. We have our “Small Mind” and our “Sacred Mind.” The small mind is essentially the ego and all its instruments. It is not evil in and of itself, but it can become so self absorbed that its actions can result in evil. The Sacred Mind is that part of us that is intimate with and identical with the incarnated aspect of the Divine Source. Among other things, the Sacred Mind is other-directed, sees the big picture, and is oriented toward love and service.
As humankind develops the capacity to live more consistently from the Sacred Mind, many problems that have haunted the world since earliest times will gradually wane. Does this mean we will live in some sort of spiritual utopia where problems do not exist? No. I suspect we will always have enough problems and difficulties to go around. What I am suggesting is that living from the Sacred Mind will decrease the amount of energy we have to exert to deal with difficulties in life because there will be, overall, a lessening of problems both in scope and magnitude.
So, what other characteristics might we expect from the spiritual unfolding of post-religious culture? What are some of the general trends? I offer the following far from exhaustive list:
Characteristics of Post-Religious Spirituality
It is post-religious in the sense that there is a recognition that genuine spirituality in this era will most likely evolve outside the parameters of traditional systems of faith.
Focused on increased understanding and application of universal spiritual/mental laws.
Seeks to facilitate a decreased dominance of the Small Mind.
Brings about an increased capacity to operate out of Sacred Mind.
Promotes discovery of our true spiritual identity.
Is far more experiential in pursuits and content; less emphasis on conceptual knowledge and doctrine.
As a result of the preceding point, it is oriented toward disciplined spiritual practice.
Pays honor to the reality and the sanctity of “Sacred Silence” and, as a result, is contemplative.
Focused on spiritual growth and the development of Sacred Character.
It is purpose driven (universal and personal).
Exhibits an engaged spirituality that seeks the betterment of life for all beings. In the fullest sense, the post-religious spirituality is “Socio-Spiritual.”
It promotes a deep ecological consciousness, flowing from reverence for and compassion for the planet.
Fosters the spiritual practices of a “Mysticism of Nature.”
Views the body as the Temple of the Spirit and seeks to promote positive health based on holistic practices.
It is at vanguard of the study and application of Energy Healing and working with the Divine Light.
Although community based, it maintains a global focus based on the interconnectivity of all things.
I am well aware that such a dramatic transition will not happen overnight. Further, it can be anticipated that there will be major resistance from the more conservative, fundamentalist fringes of all faith systems. As mentioned earlier, the more Divine Light that is poured into a situation, the deeper and more pronounced the shadows become. Despite this resistance and inertia I anticipate most of the changes discussed here will come about, at least to some degree. And, I am certain there may be other changes on the horizon that we could have never predicted. I know, for example, in my own lifetime these unexpected kinds of changes have occurred. I am now in my late 50’s and as recently as my late 30’s I doubt I could have ever anticipated the manifestation of the Internet and the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Friends, we live in exciting and challenging times. It is my sincere, heart-felt hope and prayer that we do all that we can to help usher in these positive transitions. No doubt, the post-religious world, although it will be far from perfect, will be a major improvement over the “Age of Religion.”
© L.D. Turner 2008/All Rights Reserved
These days it is common parlance to state that American culture is now both Post-Modern and Post-Christian. In most ways I suspect this is an accurate statement. Our culture increasingly holds post-modern beliefs as sacred and Christianity, long the bedrock of America’s spiritual life, has receded in terms of status and influence. I would add to these realities a third idea: American culture is increasingly “Post-Religious.”
By using the term post-religious I do not imply that religions no longer exist. Obviously they do. What I imply when using this term to describe American culture centers on the fact that Americans increasingly are pursuing spirituality outside the parameters of institutional religion. The New Age Movement is an example of this phenomenon, but it appears to go much farther than that. It seems the idea that the best way for individuals to advance spiritually is in the context of small groups of like-minded seekers has come of age.
Even adherents of established religious traditions have realized that small group settings are more conducive of authentic spirituality. Many churches break down their membership into such enclaves; small groups of Buddhist pilgrims, loosely affiliate with a major teaching center in another locale, are springing up all across the country; and an increasing number of Yoga groups are forming to deepen members’ awareness of the philosophy behind the postures and practices they regularly perform.
If we indeed are moving toward a post-religious culture, and I believe that we are, there is an interesting paradox in all of this. The fact is that Americans are becoming far more spiritual while at the same time becoming far less religious. I am aware that the phrase “I’m spiritual but not religious” has been uttered so often it has become trite. Still, hidden behind these frequently repeated words there is a distinct reality: While we are becoming less dependent upon organized religion as a culture, we are becoming an increasingly spiritual nation.
Recently, CNN reported that a recent survey of the religious beliefs of Americans revealed a few surprises. Well over 80 percent said that believed in God or a Divine Force; more surprising, a distinct majority stated that they believed that religions other than their own were also paths to salvation.
One can argue that this is a part of the standard post-modern mind set and it is certainly that. However, it also reflects that the formal beliefs of Christian tradition are no longer a strong influence even among its adherents. I am sure fundamentalists, conservatives, and others of an Evangelical ilk will rail against this trend, but I, for one, find it positive. It is my belief that in order to understand current events as well as discern the direction and purpose of the Creator at a specific age in history, we need to look at the world with a wide-angle lens. Only then can we accurately gain a grasp on what is going on around us.
The age in which we live has its own unique purpose. I believe that we are living in a time of increased spiritual energy and how we handle this more intense Divine Light will determine to a large extent how the future unfolds. We have to keep in mind, for example, that the greater the light, the deeper the shadows. That’s why there is so much chaos at the same time there is such great progress.
I am of the belief that Christianity as it has been known and practiced over the last two to three centuries is waning rapidly. New, vital, and dynamic embodiments of the path of Christ are emerging and this trend will continue. I think one important characteristic of the new wineskins that we see taking shape is the emphasis placed on the Divine Laws of the universe and what these laws mean to our walk of faith. Although it may not be totally accurate, it may be possible to say that we are in the early stages of a new Reformation.
The explosive growth of the Christian faith in the southern hemisphere, in China, and in the former Soviet Union is an example that something new is being birthed by God. Further, the rapid growth of the Word of Faith Movement is also an indicator that Christians and non-believers are both seeking a more experiential and practical faith. Granted, the Faith Movement has its problems. However, if one cuts through much of the hoopla and the bells and whistles used by its leaders, the Faith Movement is based on factual divine laws and these laws, when properly applied, do work. I think these trends point to the fact that whatever form the new spirituality takes, it will have a decidedly metaphysical core. In spite of the fears and objections of traditionalists, conservatives, fundamentalists, and most Evangelicals, I am of the firm conviction that this return to the true metaphysics of the gospel is both empowering and overdue.
There are many divergent perspectives on what the major aspects of the universal purpose of this age. These diverse views have components that are in agreement with one another and, at the same time, also have aspects that are in sharp contrast. No matter what view one holds, several things are certain:
• Change is happening on a global scale and it is occurring at a rapidity never seen before.
• This age in which we live presents humankind with tremendous challenges as well as opportunities.
• Boundaries between people, nations, religions, and races are falling.
• Culture is becoming increasingly global in nature.
• The interdependence of all Creation is becoming more apparent.
• Humans are increasingly becoming less religious and more spiritual.
These are but a small sampling of the themes and issues that are taking place around the globe as the first decade of the new century winds to a close. Of particular interest is the last item mentioned: that humans tend to focus less on religion and more on spirituality. The phrase, “I’m spiritual but not religious” has been uttered so frequently that it has now become trite. Still, these words reflect a growing reality in our world. People everywhere are experiencing a deep spiritual hunger and almost universally find that institutional religion will not satisfy that sublime longing.
Religions, by their very nature, will not get the job done. All religions began as an attempt on the part of humans to formalize and standardize the process of raising consciousness to a level adequate to make experiential contact with the Divine Source, no matter how it is defined. All religions began well but have ended poorly. In this age, humankind will of necessity learn to operate in a post-religious context. Formal religions will continue to exist and serve positive purposes, but will not function as a source of spiritual development beyond a certain point. Over the next ten years or so, we will witness the emergence of numerous new wineskins in which the impartation of spiritual teachings will take place. Some of these new wineskins will be highly positive and will serve the unfolding of God’s divine plan. Others will be less than what they should be and, in fact, may do more harm than good. For the individual seeker, discernment is critical.
Far from exhaustive, the following list details a few of the primary issues for this age:
1. Developing and implementing a deeper understanding of how the mind works, especially as in the role of a co-creator. We are to grow more conscious of the power of our thoughts, imaginations, and our spoken words. We are to use these potent tools to further the divine plan – not just to benefit ourselves.
2. This is an age of synergy, where previously separated and diverse phenomena are coming together to create new things that are similar to the past, but much different as well. Key words for this age are synergy, cooperation, community, cohesiveness.
3. In relation to the No. 1 issue regarding the mind, this is an age when humanity is increasingly coming to awareness and application to the primary mental laws. These laws have been around for ages, but now their popularity will grow and expand.
4. In this present age, the body will also take on a greater importance from a spiritual perspective. Areas of study and application will be things like holistic medicine, health and wellness, and specific techniques like yoga, qigong, etc.
If we take an objective look around it is evident that these transformations are already underway. Although progress is uneven, we can see that these changes are happening and it is safe to say that they will continue. One of the primary catalysts for these dramatic transitions into a new level of being is an increased understanding of the mind, what it is, and how it works. A remarkable aspect of this deepening comprehension of our mental functioning is the fact that it is coming from a variety of disciplines including psychology, metaphysics, biology, and physics. The details being revealed are fascinating and somewhat complex. However, we can view the overall parameters of these new insights into our cognitive functioning and how they relate to the emerging post-religious spirituality in a fairly simplistic manner.
We all have within us two seemingly opposing entities. We have our “Small Mind” and our “Sacred Mind.” The small mind is essentially the ego and all its instruments. It is not evil in and of itself, but it can become so self absorbed that its actions can result in evil. The Sacred Mind is that part of us that is intimate with and identical with the incarnated aspect of the Divine Source. Among other things, the Sacred Mind is other-directed, sees the big picture, and is oriented toward love and service.
As humankind develops the capacity to live more consistently from the Sacred Mind, many problems that have haunted the world since earliest times will gradually wane. Does this mean we will live in some sort of spiritual utopia where problems do not exist? No. I suspect we will always have enough problems and difficulties to go around. What I am suggesting is that living from the Sacred Mind will decrease the amount of energy we have to exert to deal with difficulties in life because there will be, overall, a lessening of problems both in scope and magnitude.
So, what other characteristics might we expect from the spiritual unfolding of post-religious culture? What are some of the general trends? I offer the following far from exhaustive list:
Characteristics of Post-Religious Spirituality
It is post-religious in the sense that there is a recognition that genuine spirituality in this era will most likely evolve outside the parameters of traditional systems of faith.
Focused on increased understanding and application of universal spiritual/mental laws.
Seeks to facilitate a decreased dominance of the Small Mind.
Brings about an increased capacity to operate out of Sacred Mind.
Promotes discovery of our true spiritual identity.
Is far more experiential in pursuits and content; less emphasis on conceptual knowledge and doctrine.
As a result of the preceding point, it is oriented toward disciplined spiritual practice.
Pays honor to the reality and the sanctity of “Sacred Silence” and, as a result, is contemplative.
Focused on spiritual growth and the development of Sacred Character.
It is purpose driven (universal and personal).
Exhibits an engaged spirituality that seeks the betterment of life for all beings. In the fullest sense, the post-religious spirituality is “Socio-Spiritual.”
It promotes a deep ecological consciousness, flowing from reverence for and compassion for the planet.
Fosters the spiritual practices of a “Mysticism of Nature.”
Views the body as the Temple of the Spirit and seeks to promote positive health based on holistic practices.
It is at vanguard of the study and application of Energy Healing and working with the Divine Light.
Although community based, it maintains a global focus based on the interconnectivity of all things.
I am well aware that such a dramatic transition will not happen overnight. Further, it can be anticipated that there will be major resistance from the more conservative, fundamentalist fringes of all faith systems. As mentioned earlier, the more Divine Light that is poured into a situation, the deeper and more pronounced the shadows become. Despite this resistance and inertia I anticipate most of the changes discussed here will come about, at least to some degree. And, I am certain there may be other changes on the horizon that we could have never predicted. I know, for example, in my own lifetime these unexpected kinds of changes have occurred. I am now in my late 50’s and as recently as my late 30’s I doubt I could have ever anticipated the manifestation of the Internet and the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Friends, we live in exciting and challenging times. It is my sincere, heart-felt hope and prayer that we do all that we can to help usher in these positive transitions. No doubt, the post-religious world, although it will be far from perfect, will be a major improvement over the “Age of Religion.”
© L.D. Turner 2008/All Rights Reserved
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)