Changing the story
Although we hear about successful attempts to revitalize existing churches, the overall track record is actually very poor. Ministers report again and again that their many attempts to revitalize the churches they lead do not yield the desired results. A lot of energy (and money) is put into change programs, with all the usual communication exercises, consultations, workshops, and so on. In the beginning things seem to change but gradually the novelty and impetus tends to wear off and the organization ends up settling back into something of its previous configuration. So, instead of managing new organizations, they end up managing the unwanted side effects of their efforts. The reason for this is actually quite simple, though often overlooked—that unless the paradigm at the heart of the culture is changed there can be no lasting change.
Ivan Illich was once asked what did he think the was the most radical way to change society; was it through violent revolution or gradual reform? He gave a careful answer. Neither. Rather, he suggested that if one wanted to change society, then one must tell an alternative story. Illich is right; we need to reframe our understandings though a different lens, an alternative story, if we wish to move beyond the captivity of the predominantly institutional paradigm which clearly dominates our current approach to leadership and church.
A paradigm, or systems story, is the set of core beliefs which result from the multiplicity of conversations and which maintains the unity of the culture. The ‘petals’ in this diagram are the manifestations of culture which result from the influence of the paradigm. Most change programs concentrate on the petals; that is, they try to effect change by looking at structures, systems and processes. Experience shows us that these initiatives usually have a limited success.
Church consultant Bill Easum is right when he notes that…“Following Jesus into the mission field is either impossible or extremely difficult for the vast majority of congregations in the Western world because of one thing: They have a systems story that will not allow them to take the first step out of the institution into the mission field, even though the mission field is just outside the door of the congregation.” (Unfreezing Moves, 31) He goes on to note that every organization is built upon on “an underlying systems story.” He points out that “…this is not a belief system. It is the continually repeated life story that determines how an organization feels, thinks, and thus acts. This systems story determines the way an organization behaves, no matter how the organizational chart is drawn. It’s the primary template which shapes all other things. Restructure the organization and leave the systems story in place and nothing changes within the organization. It’s futile trying to revitalize the church, or a denomination, without first changing the system.” Drilling down into this systems story, the paradigm, or mode of church, is he suggests one of the keys to change and constant innovation.
Easum notes that most theories about congregational life are flawed from the start because they are based on an institutional and mechanical worldview. Or what he calls the “Command and Control, Stifling Story.” This is particularly marked when you recognize how different the predominant forms of church are from the apostolic modes.
The movement that Jesus initiated was an organic people movement, it was never meant to be a religious institution. We must allow this new-yet-ancient systems story to seep into our imaginations and re-inform all our practices. Our organizations need to be re-evangelized.
Comments
121 Responses to “Changing the story”
This is still connected somehow with the previous two posts on ecclesial structures. Only here we are looking at the issue from the angle of paradigm theory.
What are some of the ways that pastors can begin to tell that alternative story, if not just in the pulpit?
What would happen if an existing church empowered groups to go out on their own, in the form of house churches, and develop a network across a city? What if they let go of all “command and control” and recognized these “daughter” churches were seeking to someday become a network of independent churches sharing life together on a daily basis? Would this be an alternative story for the “mother” church, for the house churches, for the city in which the network is built? (These are not theoretical questions, I’m looking for some feedback.)
The “systems theory” is another way of referring to the “programming” language of a church.
It would seem to me that in order to revitalize an existing church, we must seek to change each of these parts. Here are some thoughts on the relative difficulty of changing these parts and some possible ways to accomplish this change.
1. Theology and myths and symbols:
For preachers, the easiest to change is the theology and myths and symbols of the congregation–sounds strange, but this has been true in my experience. The stories that we tell and heroes that we hold up shape these elements. By repeatedly telling stories of those who have adopted a missional lifestyle, served others, and shared Christ, we begin to reshape the congregation’s consciousness of what the Christian life and the church ought to be about.
2. Rituals and routines - These can be changed, but must usually be done so outside of the established power structures. Rather than seeking top-down change–a great temptation–we must start a movement within our church of new, missional rituals and routines. This is why things such as Frost’s missional rhythms (B.E.L.L.S.) are so important. As we begin to invite others to come alongside of us and adopt a missional lifestyle, their thinking will change through their actions. Right actions leads to right thinking.
3. Control systems, organizational structures, power structures.
These are, I believe, the most difficult to change. I actually believe they shape our thinking more than any of the other, particularly since they do so in ways in which we are unaware. Again, the death of imagination. These can be changed in two ways:
a) Getting permission for experimental, alternative organizational structures. This is easier to get than wholesale change across the church. Then, once these alternative structures show fruit, others will come on board. After all, everyone loves a winner and Americans at least are very pragmatic.
b) Begin to “pick off” some of the organizational leaders with the missional lifestyle. These leaders then will become the advocates for organizational structure and change from inside the system.
This type of transformation takes time. At our church we are about five years into this. It will take another five years for the changes that have taken place to become permanent and for additional changes to take place. Some may never happen in an established church. Ten years–that’s the minimum in most churches. Of course, those with an apostolic gifting rarely have the patience for this! But we must either be willing to put in this time, or we must plant new churches. Either way, we need to be a part of the solution, not just complain about the established church or rail against institutionalism (a big temptation!).
Alan,
Great post! I have never heard this called “systems story”, but it sounds similar to what happened in my life, and the way that I am operating in the church. I have attempted to teach (whoever will listen) about the church as revealed in Scripture. The main problem that I’ve noticed is that people very quickly realize the implications to a new form of church, and many revolt against those implications instead of against the new form. Any suggestions concerning this?
-Alan
James, good reply to Carl’s question. The only thing I would add is that we must aim at paradigm change itself. They have to ’see it all’ from a different angle. And for this I would add experiential forms of learning. Quite honestly, I can’t see the pulpit as being adequate in itself. It is way to cerebral. In many ways the practices will paly this role. But a bit of risk and engagement won’t harm.
Alan: my own experience matches yours. Read it in the download of the new book on homepage above. As we moved into a more ‘missional movement’ type form, many people preferred what I would call a consumerist approach where they didn’t have to do much at church, but just attend and recieve. We did ‘lose’ a lot of people in the process, but we felt that we needed to change at a fundamental level in order to continue. Perhaps beter change managers than me would have minimized the loss.
is ‘preaching it’ the best way to bring paradigm change?
if medium/message counts then in many ways we possibly subvert our own endeavours!
remember that ‘Richard Rohrism’ - ‘the best critique of the bad is the practice of the better’
mmmm…interesting stuff. As one trying some things to bring about change in a group of churches I support the thrust of this of course - change is hard work..
I suspect that we will see a parallel set of churches in the next few years - the older who will continue to struggle until they disappear (and whatever we think of them, I am sure that we have no right to simply discard them) and the newer emerging organic churches who will sometimes be related to the old but rarely so. The challenge is to have an environment where this emergence is allowed and encouraged and that comes down to a leadership which encourages and supports innovation - not control and conformity…
On the subject of bringing about change, I would recommend William Bridges’ book “Managing Transitions.” It has some great suggestions for bringing about organizational change. He talks about many things, but probably the most significant thought for me was that we must sell the problem before people will buy the solution.
Too often the vision setters are so far ahead of people that we forget that people don’t understand why change is necessary. That is why I have found works like Reggie McNeal’s The Present-Future so helpful. In his book, he gives many statistics that point towards the collapse of the church culture in America. His DVD series on this is very good, and I’m showing parts of it in a class right now to help “sell the problem.”
And Barry, the sad fact of history (although I deeply lament this) the new paradigm will inevitably institutionalize and become the old paradigm–needing renewal itself. I’m glad you’re there handling things for us.
Alan, I agree that paradigm change itself is the goal. Very few, unless they are futuristic, conceptual, and apostolic in gifting can make this leap all at once, so a gradual approach is necessary. Unfortunately, if Kuhn’s work The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is any indicator, most cannot make this paradigm shift. The shift occurs by the rise of a new generation and the death of the old. Of course, Kuhn’s work looked at secular paradigms and had nothing to do with prayer. But it will take divine intervention to buck the history of paradigm shifts.
Hamo, I believe that preaching is one part of the solution. Since the different elements of the system are inter-related and contribute to the whole, their is no single “best way” to bring paradigm change.
I do, however, think that preaching plays a significant role in paradigm change, both from a biblical standpoint and from personal experience. While evangelicalism has certainly been guilty of all talk and no action, verbal proclamation of the good news is still an essential part of the church’s task and a valid part of a change strategy. Else, why did God send prophets? (Of course, most of them failed, but I digress. . . )
James, this is exactly where Illich’s comment is pertinent. We need to tell a different story. And this is where I think that the ’story’ of apostolic movement comes in. It is not good enough to deal with the ‘petals’ alone. We must alter the ’systems story’. This is no easy task, but unless we do it, all efforts at change are futile. And actually, this is where ‘preaching’ can help. But we need to be a whole lot mere subversive.
Another point for us as God’s people. We have the Holy Spirit within us. And therefore, we are not held unalterably to scciological principles as important as these are. We can wake up! We CAN discover ourselves anew…and in our most potent form. Because the story is alive within us. It is just forgotten. I know you agree, because we have talked about this. This gives me great hope!
C’mon Celtic Son, this is your cue!
What an enlightening post. I am a fan of John Eldredge’s writings. He also places a big emphasis on story and how story affects our lives.
As a missionary trying to work with leaders and pastors coming out of two different story paradigms (institutional & organic house church) I would be most interested in some concrete ideas about how to begin to change the story so that our institutional brothers can see that there is more than one story going on? I can tell the Biblical story till I am blue in the face and the only reaction will be, “we know that story and are already following it, what’s the big deal?”
Any ideas for helping us tell the story in such a way that people can begin to see there is another story and it is quite different from the one they are living in?
Hullo-o-o…
it’s not that I’ve fallen off the face of the planet… There are times when I simply need to stop analysing and be, there are times when I need to stop critiquing and do… For me, the energy I expend in discussing, thinking, writing etc needs to reflect fruit in my life or promote fruit from my life… otherwise it’s a waste of energy! I’ve been thinking a bit more deeply about some of my own comments in the past few weeks, and relating them to my present experience of ecclesia. As much as I’m prone to present my convictions, I also need to practice what I preach. Of course, Alan suggesting this is my cue also panders to my obsessive compulsion for love and acceptance… and my ego problem!
I believe that paradigm change is totally necessary - I’ve argued, in several places, that the evangelical paradigm that undergirds the most virulent strains of Christianity is fundamentally flawed in several ways. The issue is not, “do we need change” but what specifically needs changing? Subsequently how do we identify the order of change and actually change those things and what is the time frame for change? What do we do with people who don’t want to change… I’m reminded that murder is not an option (could be a cheesy t-shirt in that!)
Although Jesus began an organic people movement, nonetheless the movement had some structure and the early church had some structure. Structure is not a high priority though, so for us the issue is one of ensuring that the organisational structure serves, and is subservient to, the organic. Unfortunately, because we have a predisposition to serve structures, hammered into us by our education system, it does not take long for any group of people to become servants of the structure.
Every year our church has developed our leadership structure, it is never the same - roles added and roles removed, new people added, some others relocated. Every year for the last five years we have changed the format of gatherings - the way we gather, who is involved etc. We plan new and different ways to connect with and serve our local community. This has partly been in an attempt to generate “change” as a fundamental paradigm - it has not been completely successful, but combined with regularly changing the venue for our weekly gatherings, it has helped us remain fluid… this far.
I agree that the story is alive within us, though forgotten… more than that, I believe that we are within the story, but catatonic! Effectively we need to be made alive within that bigger story - which is the work of God in Christ. It is all there to be read and seen, if only we viewed it with different lenses. It’s a bit like having the words of Jesus written in red and then reading with glasses that pick up every colour except red. We need to take off the groovy red glasses and return to the plain glasses that reveal the ugly truth.
Preaching only helps as a minor part of the equation, and only then when the preacher’s life stacks up to what s/he is preaching. It all comes back to the individual heart, that leaders have a genuine relationship with God, then it depends on the relationship between people’s hearts. The success of our paradigm is not based on Sunday church attendance, but reflected in the daily lives of those who follow us as we follow Christ.
Most people pay absolutely no attention to foundational issues… most live at a lesser level. The shifting of paradigms is the work of leadership, and particularly of apostolic leadership - the subversive nature of Christ’s leadership led Him to calvary’s cross, and while some deserted, some also stayed - mostly women. It sounds dramatic, but the church needs leaders prepared to serve unto death, unpaid, and unloved in support of truth. We need leaders who choose the paradigm shift of serving God not mammon… We need leaders who choose the paradigm shift of leading by serving…
We need to acknowledge that today’s revolutionaries are tomorrow’s conservatives… and that’s ok! Martin Luther ushered in paradigm change and in less than a couple of hundred years what had once been revolutionary became institutional. Let’s get on with the business of shaping the things we can shape, and let the rest take care of itself!
beannachd dia dhuit
A Celtic Son
ps - it would be good to hear some real life stories about people’s successes and failures in the effort to facilitate change!
How about we consider the model of FORGE? I am working through the book, going back and forth between sections, overwhelmed with the richness…and the bulbs are popping. So many ideas I can’t process them, but what I can see is a consideration must be given to what Alan et al are working on and how that can be translated for implementation in north American context.
For example, what would happen if a church like University Avenue in Austin recruited the students (we are a university church) to a life of discipleship formed by action? We have a seminary on campus, we have access to people like Randy Harris at ACU, we have access to church planting organizations like Mission Alive, and we have a core group of people within the institution seeking to tell an alternative story. What would happen if this core group was willing to live an alternative story with this new generation of leaders in the form of “action learning” based on the Hebraic model? What would that institution look like in 10 to 15 years? What would the movement look like with these small “house” churches planted throughout the city? I wonder if the institution that allows others to “go”, will be transformed ? Quoting the book, “So whether we find ourselves with old thinking and old behavior, or new thinking and old behavior, the way forward is to put actions into the equation.” Stories (at least good ones) are the result of actions, not vice versa.
Carl, I think you are right, to get a story, we need to do something. Othewise it is not a story, but a theory.
But in this case, it is actually reminding ourselves of the Story in which we all dwell. And I think it means telling this in ways that undermine our tendency to make static our experience of Jesus and church.
At Forge we host a summit called Dangerous Stories (see http://www.forge.org.au ) and the image says it all.
[...] Alan schreibt selbst über die “zugrunde liegende Geschichte” [...]
Do we have an interpreter so that we can all be edified?
Carl, good to have another from the Restoration heritage join the discussion. I’m a Harding grad, working on a D.Min. at Fuller. Randy Harris is outstanding.
You are right–the stories that we tell will be most effective when we ourselves are living out the stories. This verbal message makes the invitation to others to come alongside us and do mission all that much more attractive. I share stories of my BELLS partners and the people’s lives that we get to bless. So few are doing anything like this that it really grabs people’s imagination and makes them more open to a missional lifestyle themselves.
In a personal example, hearing people like Reggie McNeal and Michael Frost speak about such things inspired me to adopt a more consistent missional lifestyle, so I know that this can have an effect on people as one part of the solution.
From my experience, you can preach/teach/act the new story until you are blue in the face… and a lot of people still dont get it…. everyone in the west has an idea of what the church should be and it is very institutional. breaking that view is next to impossible… this must be a very slow process - even if you bring no traditionally churched members into a new church…
There are those who are waking up - and those are the ones we need to focus on… but what about the others? - can they just stay in the old church - does that cause any harm - or is the old church dead?
Aye… Aye… Aye… when we begin to challenge one another about what we will DO as a consequence of our blogging, then we begin to move forward.
Guy Muse commented about working with people from different paradigms and the difficulty in relating the story. We need to actually redefine the story and how we relate the story. The Biblical story is not about the individual stories it contains, but the BIG story that actually holds it all together. We have lived with a paradigm that values a pick’n'mix approach to the Biblical story. We’ve been taught to take one story, from the thousands it contains and extract a principle - to support the point that we already want to make! That paradigm needs to change - we need to move from the big picture to the small pieces, not the other way around!
Differences are justified by using pieces from extreme opposite edges of the jigsaw and proclaiming that we have THE right piece - in reality we both may have A right piece. Our paradigm is to take one piece of a 10,000 piece jigsaw, jam another piece alongside it and, based on the image from those two small pieces, extrapolate what the big picture looks like! And we are all way off the mark!We need one another to share our pieces of the jigsaw in love to build a picture.
When 100 people, or a 1000 people, or even 10 people can sit down and bring their pieces to the table in peace, knowing that they need one another to begin to build, knowing that they cannot be right without community, knowing that their pieces are not THE pieces, but that they have value as they contribute to the whole - then and only then do we have the possibility of considering that we might begin! Some come to the table with few pieces and some come with many, but not all the pieces we carry belong to the BIG story. When we are prepared to acknowledge that some of the pieces we carry don’t belong to this story and we need to put them in their place in another story, need to lay them aside to build this picture then there is possibility. It doesn’t mean that other pictures are unhelpful - in knowing what doesn’t fit we can shape what does - but that they are not the picture we are aiming to build.
As each shares our own story, it is like seeing another piece of the jigsaw of the big story. As more is added to the picture it is clearer to the rest of us what pieces we have and where and how they might fit. When we are aware of bits that don’t fit, we can be more aware of things that might not fit in our context - we may still try them, but we ought to be less stressed about the potential of failing.
The role of paradigm shifters is to set the table and begin, to create opportunities for others to bring their pieces to the table. We need to begin to discover for ourselves and retell the BIG story - to begin to set the outline of the shape of the jigsaw. Our “institution” should simply be a matter of facilitating and co-ordinating opportunities to contribute to the picture, for every person to bring their story and be helped to see how it fits in the big story.
The FORGE model is getting back to the hands-on jigsaw building model that Jesus walked with. Unlike our classroom settings, students learn by observation that is connected with an outcome, to be achieved in a real world setting. Then they learn by activity and reflection - it’s the restoration of a “forgotten way” and I agree with Carl that it is definitely one of the elements that we need to rediscover. It’s not based on a book about a jigsaw that might or might exist, it’s taking a piece of the jigsaw and experimenting with others to see how our pieces might fit together to contribute positively to the whole.
One of Jesus Christ’s primary purposes was to set captives free and our organisation needs to serve that aim… not provide another bondage. Gatherings should set people free to engage in the story, to tell their story or not, but know that their piece of the jigsaw is valued and vital. Sadly some will always choose to focus on the other minor stories that they have pieces of - the pictures of consumerist wealth and material success, the pictures of hedonist pleasure and religious moralism…
There is a vision to be constructed. In telling our story and sharing the piece we have of the BIG story, then acting on it we can begin to build towards something way BIGGER than ourselves… that’s a purpose worth living/dying for, that’s an ecclesia with purpose.
beannachd dia dhuit
A Celtic Son
I’ll break the rules once again.
Why are you wasting your time modelling, deconstructing, theorising, culturally adapting and playing with theological concepts. You must be aware that theology is a system for people with weak minds, otherwise you would have studied pure mathematics - it’s much more interesting and has practical applications.
Here is a simpler approach: Live the message.
As a starter, I’ll give you your first exercise in practical Christianity.
Exercise 1: Please sell all your possessions, and deposit 50% of the proceeds in my bank account. You make get my email address from this blog’s author. This exercise has strong New-Testament backing. Ok, get cracking.
I take it that you are poor then Dave. You will have to substantiate that!
I am not sure if you are serious, but if you are I certainly can’t agree with the theology v. maths thing. Different kind of knowledge entirely. And I hated maths at school.
Hi David…
I realise that I’m exposing my own limited intellect, but I’m at a loss to make sense of your comments. You claim to be an afficionado of pure mathematics, yet your interest is apparently in applied maths… and you are content to “break the rules” - surely anathema to a purist? In suggesting that others “live the message,” what is the basis on which you claim exemption from living the message you are proclaiming?
Dismissing the discussion of others as “weak” and then presenting a hypothesis, without supporting evidence, is clearly not the work of someone who is serious, however it’s not particularly humorous either. Perhaps, rather than expose further my own limitations, you won’t mind if I quote a man possessed of an intellect with a little more credibility;
“I do not think that it is necessarily the case that science and religion are natural opposites. In fact, I think that there is a very close connection between the two. Further, I think that science without religion is lame and, conversely, that religion without science is blind. Both are important and should work hand-in-hand”
Albert Einstein
Einstein’s approach to theology would be different to mine, but nonetheless he was engaged in thinking about aspects of theology - I have yet to meet anyone who’d consider his a weak mind.
Slainte
A Celtic Son
Let me apologise for suggesting you are a moron, Celtic Son.
The Christian life, as described in the New Testament, seems to be a particularly difficult one to follow. I don’t lead that type of lifestyle. For example, I own stuff (not poor, Alan, but definitely not wealthy, either). I don’t think I could handle dangerous snakes and poisons without ending up in hospital or the morgue. I couldn’t babble on in tongues and convince myself that I was speaking in a meaningful language. I can’t magically heal people of serious (or any other) illness.
And Celtic, my theological intellect is not so great, either. Examples here, are the trinity - I can’t understand that in a logically consistent manner. I don’t see the point of the central theme of Christianity - God sacrificing Himself to Himself to give Himself permission to change rules He made up Himself (a bad summary, but gives and idea of its confusing nature). And this based on original Sin - what’s that all about?
Christianity seems to be an almost impossible lifestyle, that requires an intellectually confusing set of beliefs.
David, I think we’ve had this discussion before a few blogs ago. I would not for a moment dismiss your right to question faith (for whatever reason) and to debate the merits of belief. But this is not the website to engage in such dialogue. Whether you agree with it or not, or even whether you particularly like it or not, the discussion here assumes faith, and a missionary one at that. We are discussing and engaging here with things that are important to us (even though you might dismiss them.) Please honor that. I mean no offense and, once again, am not dismissing your right to ask questions of this kind. I am asking you not to divert our discussions away from the intended subject material.
Back to the issue at hand.
David…
I don’t think anything in my post suggested you were living a Christian life - I don’t know how you would manage to presume that if you were approaching things logically? It’s clear from your accusation that people in this blog are “wasting” their time, that you are opposed to Christianity and to the framework of this blog.
You proposed that pure mathematics was a more interesting basis - my observation was basically that the inconsistencies in your own rationale preclude taking you seriously. Clearly you are either not able to comprehend that, or else you are not able to support your opinion. Your inability to engage in meaningful discussion about your own inconsistencies and lack of credible argument is disappointing.
Your inability to understand certain concepts in a logical manner, is understandable since the basis of the discussion is not logic, it clearly takes some effort to misunderstand that. There is a place for discussion based on logic, but it is not the sole principle for evaluating life. There is generally nothing logical about loving another human being, most people find it difficult to express their emotions in any way that makes logical sense - it doesn’t make the experience any less real.
Childish invective is the last resort of a weak mind, but I’m sure you can find some other inconsistent rationale to justify your childishness. It makes no logical sense that you would continue to contribute, which suggests you respond on a basis other than logic.
Nevertheless I do thank you for your apology…
A Celtic Son
Going back to telling a different story…
Alan, would it be appropriate here to ask you to:
1. Describe for us what was the story that Jesus found himself in when he walked the earth 2000 years? In other words, what was the story/paradigm that the religious leaders of his day were offering to the people?
2. What was the counter-story that Jesus told at that time which contained Apostolic Genius?
Maybe if this was clearer, I’d be able to grasp this idea with a firmer grip. Or am I asking for the obvious (which I am still struggling to see)?
My little stab at it would go something like this:
1. The story/paradigm of 1st century Judaism: Man-made rituals and traditions mediated their relationship to God. Thus, it was required that observance and adherence to these rituals and traditions made one acceptable to God.
2. The alternative story that Jesus introduced was the story of the spiritual Kingdom of God being slowly revealed in and through the hearts of men. Surrender to Jesus as King/Lord is the appropriate response to this “nearing” Kingdom. This heart surrender impacts personal and corporate lifestyle like yeast affects dough.
Then it would follow that structure would be developed that supports this new story.
Does this makes sense? Or am I way off the mark?
Thank you for your feedback, Celtic. I will use that for self-improvement, as I need a lot of that (just ask my wife). If you, or any other people commenting on this blog, are ever in the Melbourne CBD area, I am happy to shout you lunch at any mutually agreeable time. Please don’t all reply at once, as I don’t want to spend an excessive amount. The offer applies for a limited time (as I’m old and fat).
OK, Alan, time to stop intruding on this discussion. Should the discussion end, and the practice start, I may meet some of you in the “mission field” (sorry about the 19th century terminology, I can’t do modern Christian parlance as well as you guys; should have used the word missiology, but it wouldn’t fit syntactically).
David…
you would not be the only one whose wife would prescribe a dose of self-improvement (if it’s not my wife, then a short time in front of a mirror has a similar effect.) Nor would you be alone in aging and becoming under height. Like you I am keen for discussion to find its end and application to begin…
It’s not likely I’ll be in Melbourne’s CBD in the short term, so you won’t have me to add to the rushing queue… though I do appreciate the lunch offer.
beannachd dia dhuit
A Celtic Son
Thanks David. I appreciate that.
As for Markjuane (man that name is close to marijuana!–kinda the male equivalent of Mary Jane.:-)) I think you are onto it. the interesting thing about Jesus, is that he told Israel her real story afresh. It was very close to the ‘official’ versions (which by this time was highly controlled, but focused the story on the role that he as Messiah played in defining Israel. It was an appeal for Israel to see herself in a more Messianic light and that the Kingdom had come in the person and mission of Jesus. So its near but not far. I find the writings of NT Wright very useful here.
What this means for renewal and mission is that in a rather eery way, we need to hear our own story afresh. We need to be re-evangelized. As I have said before, (see category on Jesus) Christology must now capture our attention and redefine our actions. We need to ‘radicalize.’ That is, get back to out Root. Let the wild, un-manageable, ultra-loving, Messiah get first dibs on defining who we are as his people. Its back to Jesus and the Gospels with us!
Alan,
I’ve been called “Marijuana” before. But that was a long time ago when I was a teenager. And I never inhaled! HAHAHA! Mark will do just fine….hehehe.
Would you say that Jesus “re-evangelized” the Jews of his day? As a Rabbi, he would have gathered disciples (aka. talmidim) in a very Jewish way. I can see how he could use the rabbinical method to develop the apostles but it was different with everyone else, it seems.
Would First Church structure have come out of this?
Ahh, for all the structural stuff and the big picture you have to read The Forgotten Ways (not just the blog but the book!)
Seriously, that’s exactly what I try to deal with in the book. Give it a go.
Alan,
I’ve read your book several times. Maybe my head is too hard…that I don’t get what you’re trying to say here.
Thought that this is where we hash this all out after reading the book? This is why I am asking…
Ahh, but you didn’t say that did you? Well then I wold say that the answer, or rather the alternative story to the predominant narrative of church, is found in the non-institutional, movemental, story of what church ought to be. It is found in the complex that makes up apostolic genius. People have got to dwell in that story of the church. This IS the paradigm shift. Our imaginations are captive to a very static and institutional idea of the church at present.
As for ‘hashing it all out after reading the book’, certainly the blog will help bro. But a blog moves ahead one post at a time–it has its own rhythm. We won’t be able to jump around at will. Have you considered doing the online training course (above)? This is a much more distinctly educational option. If you, Mark Marijuana, want to ‘hash it out’, that’s a really good option.
And you can join with many others from around the world in a thorough discussion on the book and related materials, chapter by chapter with coaching to guide reflection.
Good sales pitch Alan! But I’ll buy the book anyway
Mark…
my conviction, is that Jesus did not so much usher in a NEW covenant as He reNEWed the original covenant - the one that existed prior to the Old Covenant… . The Old Testament was a parenthetical, interim covenant and the priests - including Moses - who mediated it incorporated allowances. In that sense Jesus re-evangelised, in that he restored the “good news” of the origins to God’s people, rather than the religious bondage that they had been bound in.
When Jesus begins His ministry, picking up the cry of John the Baptist to “repent”, He is not speaking to “unbelievers” but to the converted - to the Jews, God’s chosen people of the day. The message of repentance is not spiritual, it is a challenge to the intellect and the will, the message to the believers is to “change your mind” and the word - metanoiea - can imply the giving up of a wrong idea, and returning to the original message they once knew. Repentance has always been a call to God’s people to return to the forgotten ways - it still is… it has never been a message to someone who is an unbeliever, for any other purpose.
The message of changing our mind, is a challenge to choose to line up our thinking with the spiritual reality of the Kingdom that Jesus reveals to us. I am convinced that our structures need to grow out of an understanding of God’s purpose for humanity - which means we need to understand who God is, who we are and what the purpose is… Structurally, organisation must always serve the organic and not be allowed to become the other way around. Organisation is important, but always secondary to relationship.
Our relationship with God IS in our inclusion in Christ - check out the patristic concept of perichoresis - and is the basis of our structure. Alan suggests we need to hear our story afresh, and I’d agree. My conviction is that we are actually immersed in the story, it is a spiritual reality and we need to be reawakened to what is actually going on in the spiritual realm. SO what Jesus did - and still does - is incorporate us into His relationship in the Godhead.
Structures then are based on loving relationships, rather than systems of mediating our sin.
Beannachd Dia dhuit
A Celtic Son
Well said CS.
Refering to Comment 17 - sorry guys. It is from my german blog and I didn’t realise the trackback would auto-generate a comment on your blog, Alan.
But we are discussing your book here in germany! I asked you some time ago, if I could translate some of the Introduction and Chapter 1, I am now working on the addendum, which might be very special for german culture and leadership to dialogue about. Since it is taking some time (I am working on it all day and am not nearly finished) - I wanted to ask prior to finishing if I have your permission to put it on my german blog for the benefit of our little blog scene? Of course copyright notices would be included and stuff! I don’t have your mail, so I ask via comment. Are there any notions towards a german translation of TFW? Many would appreciate it, I think…
Well, thanks for the thoughts in the book and all the reseach and heart. So much is written there, which speaks directly from my heart. If you could just write me a line…I’d really appreciate it (mb_wagner at mac dot com) Greetings
Celtic Son,
have you been reading NT Wright along with A Hirsch?
Dana
Hi Dana…
NT Wright is on my list of “must reads”, but I haven’t got there yet… I’m balancing some reading with figuring some things out as I go… nice to think that NT Wright is on a similar page to me
Slainte
A Celtic Son
OK, now is the time Celtic Son to reveal the meaning of your various closing greetings. We are all curious and now I just have to ask.
BTW, NT Wright is a really useful scholar. His commitment to historical-theological perspectives means he is much closer to understanding Jesus than many around today.
Hi Alan…
yeah I will get around to NT Wright. I’m on a train of thought at present that I need to conclude, before moving on to further thoughts about Jesus. Alongside the practical issues of starting a “church,” building a team, counselling people, sitting on boards of community organisation, running communtiy events and learning from life and mission, I also have another job, a wife and two kids - and a relationship in Christ. Over the last 6 or 7 years I’ve read an eclectic mix of material and realised a couple of years ago that for the sake of my own sanity and sense of productivity I needed to focus on some specific issues for a while.
I’ve been working through Athanasius and Augustine on Trinity, followed with a main course of Barth and Torrance, with Stanley Grenz for dessert… I believe that there are some foundational elements in the Patristic and early church Fathers, that Barth and Torrance pick up and reflected in Grenz… Of course it necessitates exploring the criticial comments of some mainline, liberal and evangelical voices that oppose some of their writings - all of which takes time, but broadens the mind.
Like many others on commenting on your blog I’m pursuing truth and believe it has practical application too. So I have a need to implement some of the things I consider, to find out if it’s authentically fruitful, which also takes seasons to come to fruition. It makes for a busy and a rewarding life, but nmot always well organised - which is why you’ll see that my comments arrive at all sorts of hours and at times I disappear for a wee while!
Now then… the more interesting stuff..
My wee comments at the end of posts tend to come from Scots Gaelic;
Slainte (pronounced slonschay) is a Celtic saying as you raise your glass, meaning “cheers” literally “health” - possibly like “Le Chaim”
Beannachd Dia dhuit - is a Gaelic blessing that translates as “the blessings of God be with you”
Shalom
A Celtic Son
LOL! I’ll seriously consider doing the training course. It would be awesome to “hash” this out! But you’ve clarified a lot of things for me with your last reply, Alan.
Hey CS, I appreciate your comments. Thanks! There is one thing though about your last reply. I don’t think our existence can be as neatly categorized as you make it out to be. I refer to your comment on how repentance is not a spiritual experience but one that addresses the mind and the will. I always thought that the strongholds of the mind that Paul refers to in 2 Corinthians 10:4-6
was also considered a spiritual aspect of human existence. Just wanting to have a more messianic worldview! 
But putting that aside, I totally agree with your post when you said, “Structurally, organisation must always serve the organic and not be allowed to become the other way around. Organisation is important, but always secondary to relationship.”
This is starting to really come together for me. Good timing as we’re entering into a core gathering phase for a new church plant in Ottawa, Canada come February 4. My hope and prayer is that we can flesh out Apostolic Genius in this new network we’re starting. We covet your prayers!
I gotta get my hands on NT Wright stuff! Any suggestions on where to begn?
Hi Mark…
I’m the first to ackowledge that categorising things can be innacurate and inadequate and you’re right I didn’t express my point well. In one significant sense ALL things are spiritual. So what I should have written was something like “the message of repentance is not dominantly spiritual, in the way that we have been taught it is…”
The point I intended to make was that, the message about repentance is generally taught in churches as a “purely” spiritual message directed to the “unconverted”, of the necessity of their spiritual repentance from their sins, to become eligible for spiritual salvation… I read the weight of Biblical teaching differently. I believe it is more consistent to see repentance as a message to believers, who already have a spiritual basis for decision making. The Biblical message of repentance is a challenge to spiritual people, to return to the basis of making their thinking subservient to their spirit. The challenge is to change our minds, to line up our thinking with the truth in our spirit, which is in communion with the Holy Spirit, since in our being, the believer is the temple of the Holy Spirit.
So, reading 2 Cor 10
consistent with that concept, I would suggest that Paul has to be effectively saying, “as spiritual people we don’t engage in discussion and argument the way the world does, we don’t have to prove God etc, because we have the capacity to be led by the Spirit.” His concept then of “taking captive every thought” is that our thinking needs to be subject to our spirit/the Holy Spirit. He’s not necessarily saying that the “strongholds of the mind” are spiritual per se, though they do undoubtedly have influence in our spiritual being. What Paul is saying is that, as believers. we need to exercise our spiritual being to control the influences on our thinking - not the other way around… which is how we see the incarnate Jesus Christ lives.
I hope that’s a helpful explanation, because there are deeper depths to that whole issue!
I love the church and I’m excited about you gathering a core team for a new church plant. I’d say in gathering a core team for a new church plant - there is a need for the team to love the church/ecclesia, AND be ridiculously imbalanced in favour of missional thinking. In my experience, keeping the church missional longer term, requires missional fanatics as the core of the church.
Beannachd Dia dhuit - “the blessings of God be with you”
A Celtic Son
CS Just reading comment #42 makes me tired. given that situation I really appreciate the time you take on this blog. We all benefit from those hours with Barth and Torrance. Actually, their influence on you defintely comes through.
Mark, (and all you other church planters out there) you need to know you really are my heroes. All the best for the new initiative. Make it happen!
Hi Alan,
I’m sure your schedule would be just as hectic. I locve to learn and I enjoy your blog, it’s therapeutic - the opportunities that I have for meaningful discussion on these issues are few and far between. Many people on the blog have contributed great insights, which have encouraged me and some which I’ve bounced my thinking off. It’s also inspiring to know that you’re not alone and that your thinking can be useful in helping others in the service of our missional God.
Beannachd Dia dhuit - “the blessings of God be with you”
A Celtic Son
I think James had an excellent point when he talked about how the ‘heros we hold up’ have a powerful shaping effect.
Heros are an important element of any story and in talking about alternative stories I think we need to give serious consideration to invoking alternative heros and alternative ways of looking at established heros.
It is my observation that a Christendom focus and a Jerusalem focus tend to go hand in hand. Many who still dream of revival (as opposed to mission) and speak of our Christian nation (as if that still had a shed of plausibility) wax lyrical of the glory days of David, offer shrill warnings in the manner of Elijah, and pepper their songs with references drawn from the temple focussed psalms. As more of an exile type myself such stories and symbols often fail to connect at as deep a level as alternative stories.
I prefer to tell stories of the heros of exile, of Daniel amongst the Magi, of Joseph and of Esther, of the dreams of Ezekial with the Shekinah of God leaving the temple and heading east into Pagan territory. When I speak of Paul, I am fascinated by his journeys amongst the people of Athens and Lystra more than his troubles amongst the Jews. When I speak of Peter, I am fascinated by his trance visions that led him to Cornelius’ house. When I meditate of the life of Jesus, I am continually drawn back to his experiences amonst the Samaritans - the woman by the well, the healed lepar and hisstory of the good samaritan.
Moving into more contemporary times - are your heros the revivalist American preachers or the missinal Chinese matyrs? Do you speak of Spurgeon more than Desmond Tutu? What stories do you tell others? Christians? Non-Christians? I recently blogged on an early church father called Mathetes at http://mattstone.blogs.com. A very missional bloke. How many have even heard of him? Is he a forgotten hero?
What is your BIG story? A tale of escape from earth to heaven, of cosmic escape? Or a tale of heaven inbraking on earth, of cosmic exorcism? Are your heros disembodied forever or awaiting resurrection in the wake of Jesus’ return? How do you think of them when your guard is down?
I find that the stories I embrace can have a profound effect on how I act out the Christian life, how I read the Bible, how I approach organisation.
Hmm.. so many thoughts so little time.. Matt, good reminder that we need exilic heroes, I think Brueggemann makes this argument very well. “Systems theory” you mean OS.. operating system, one of the analogies Alan used well in the new book. But then, as he pointed out, you can’t change only the OS, you have to also change the hardware and the software. A lot of this discussion was about change: what produces it? And if we are looking for fundamental change, which we are, we are really looking at disturbing the stasis of a stable system. (We have a good partner in this in the Holy Spirit and cultural shift… it seems all things are being shaken.) Bill Buker wrote a paper some years ago with a nasty title: the epistemology of systems theory. He was looking at how we break addictions
(cue theme music for the detox boogie) His thesis is simple: the deepest order of change is epistemological change. Example: Luke’s account of Peter in Acts 10
. Buker looks at successful recovery processes and notes that three elements are involved:
* an ability to embrace paradox;
* an inner quality of humility leading to surrender;
* the willingness to grieve the loss of the previous world and previous identity
In terms of the shift from inherited, pastor centered church to missional engagement, Peter’s conversation with the Jerusalem church in Acts 11
is an example of the kind of conversation we need. Key elements are story telling, theological reflection, critical questioning and passionate advocacy.
Len, a very useful comment bro. This gives a pastoral edge to the issue of change. The comment on addictions and breaking them reminds me of those folk who swear by the KJV and deny the validity of all other versions. Someone once said to me that it was difficult for them because they associate it so much with God, and their bonding with him is couched/framed in terms of the KJV Bible and its distinctive English. The same is true for hymns, pews, church buildings, etc…the association with God in and through the object of focus makes it difficult for people to see the neccesity of discard it.
This holds a bit of water, although I personally must admit to having little patience with such seemingly infantile (and somewhat Freudian) ‘reasons’ for not adjusting to change, especially when it is God himself that is calling them to change. It seems that people bond with all the wrong things. But then, I was never much of a pastor…
Oh yeah, I remember, its called idolatry.
Alan, great post and I appreciate your inclusion of Bill Easum’s thots on the matter. As a “turn around” senior pastor my entire ministry until a couple years ago I discovered that while I was effective at helping the congregations get to a certain level of health (with God’s help of course) I found much to my sadness and dismay that when the congregations reached a level of discomfort they reverted back to what I call the original DNA dysfunction or in Bill’s description it was their story.
In my last gig with God’s help we came after a severe church split and God blessed and we grew from under 200 to over 600 in less than 7 years and we built a 3.3 million dollar addition and paid 2.7 million off in less than 3 years. Guess what happened?
The core got uncomfortable with leadership changes and power loss and I felt they reached a level of comfort and wanted to hunker down.
I left on principles of integrity as I refused to play those games and they have their desired dysfunctional story. And it a sad one and hard one for me to digest.
By the way, growing from less than 200 to over 600 and a big building was not success, it was lunacy! Now that I stepped out of that lunacy I have committed the rest of my life to making disciples who makes disciples in a movement of God birthed Churches who do the same. And, we don’t need large buildings and budgets and more butts in pews to do this.
Call me impossible, but I do NOT believe we can turn these entrenched congregations around. I’m for letting them serve their time and purposes on their own life support while we create a movement of disciple making that cannot be stopped.
I’m not convinced we can ever change their story, I believe this because I have tried for 23+ years. Tell me, Was it my lack of leadership to turn the ship or was it their own love for their own dysfunctional story, Or were we both part of the problem?
Wow Bob. Thanks for sharing your story so openely and honestly. Its always more powerful coming from an ‘insider’ so to speak. I’d like to think turnaround could happen, but as an denominatioanl executive [paying for my sins :-)] for over 12 years I’d have to say the record is not good. It was rare indeed, and yet most of the focus, effort, and the budget allocation of the denomination was given to supporting the existing churches and helping them revitalize. Scary! Totally sincere though.
I do believe it can happen, and does. And I have to believe that if God is present among his people, then there is always hope. But I no longer can feel that focussing on revitlization is the STRATEGIC thing to so. The current results are depressing and the money spent is appalling. Denominations I bellieve should have at least a 50:50 split to missions:ministry on budget. Sadly its usually around 10:90
By the way, I don’t say this to be cynical at all. In fact I am quite hopeful given the crisis situation/s the church will increasingly face. We will discover the inner resources or perish–I think we will rediscover our latent purpose and potentials.
Thanks to both Alan and CS. We’re quite excited about the new church plant. I totally agree with CS when he says that the core needs to be a bunch of missional fanatics!
As we’ve been discussing, a big challenge for us will be for many of my cohorts to detox from attractional/institutional church mode while creating a movement ethos/strucuture.
Story! Story! Story!
Believe it or not, I once downloaded a training manual for an Al-Quaeda cell. I was impressed that what bound them together and kept them on track wasn’t even their relationships to one another. In fact, none of the cell members knew each other’s real names. What bound them together and kept them on track was their fanatical commitment to the ideology (aka. story) of their cause and extreme clarity of their mission (and what their strategic targets were). I’m convinced that if those 19 specific individuals did not create 911, then another cell would have woken up and got the job done.
Imagine what it would be like if the church was a movement of missional cells who were fanatical about the Story and the cause. imagine if the church clearly understood their overall mission. Imagine if each cell knew clearly what the key spiritual targets were. His mission connects us.
Here’s an excerpt from an Al-Qaeda manual confiscated in England.
Missions Required of the Military Organization:
The main mission for which the Military Organization is
responsible is:
The overthrow of the godless regimes and their replacement with an Islamic regime. Other missions consist of the following:
1. Gathering information about the enemy, the land, the installations, and the neighbors.
2. Kidnaping enemy personnel, documents, secrets, and arms.
3. Assassinating enemy personnel as well as foreign tourists.
4. Freeing the brothers who are captured by the enemy.
5. Spreading rumors and writing statements that instigate
people against the enemy.
6. Blasting and destroying the places of amusement, immorality, and sin; not a vital target.
7. Blasting and destroying the embassies and attacking vital economic centers.
8. Blasting and destroying bridges leading into and out of the
cities.
If only the church was this clear about her mission!
Gee its sounds so violent though doesn’t it. But you’re so right about the commitment. I downloaded that document as well, and then worried about NSA coming after me.
You’re right, Alan. It does sound violent! LOL! I was worried about the same thing. In fact, I was just waiting for something to happen to my connection after posting that! So far…connection is still good.
Al-Qaeda is telling their followers a whole different story aren’t they? And they’ve organized around that story, eh?
It’s obvious now that we need to re-tell the Gospel/Kingdom story afresh. But how do we keep from re-telling it in the old attractional/institutional “voice?” I remember hearing a preacher once refer to 1 Corinthians 14:26
as a congregational (!) meeting. Yikes! He totally read into that part of the story.
Have you thought of ways how we would help people detox from the attractional/institutional church? From the above comments, I would venture to say that you might recommend a “cold turkey” approach?
The drug theme continues it seems! But you’re so right about the story and how it informs Al-Quaeda. Strangely I have never thought of A-Q that way. but of course.
Re the detox for attractional church. Now that is a darn good idea. We could do an interventiion and kidnap pastors and take them into the bush for a week of cold turkey. Floation tanks, etc. Here’s a real ministry for someone.
As I reflect on things I can’t help but point out that Al Hirsch is blogging about detox, as he discusses an Al-Quaeda manual with a blogger he previously identified as sounding a bit close to Marijuana… it all seems too trippy to me, I think I need the detox!
There have been a number of helpful points made here recently…
Matt - I appreciate the return to a prior comment about heroes, so often significant points get missed as we get caught up in spilling out our own insights, rather than listening to others. I think the point is well made that our stories of heroes reflect the preconceptions that underscore our worldview. My question is how do you perceive yourself, or how do you expect listeners to see themselves, as you tell the story of the exilic hero? How do you see the function of the exilic hero in the process of change?
Len - I appreciate your observations and the insight into Bruker’s thinking. I’ve often thought that the process of effective discipleship is a “recovery process” - in effect we recover opurselves, as we were originally created to be, from our addiction to predominant concepts of the worldview imposed upon us (hedonism, materialism, intellectualism etc in the “first world”.) Does Bruker provide any clues to the implementation of the three elements of effective recovery processes? Do you have any insight on the process of recovery and effectively implementing change?
Bob - it takes intestinal fortitude to do what you have done and your sharing it is significant to me… thank you. I guess I agree with Alan that it must be possible to turn the church around, but from a personal perspective I’m with you… I’d prefer to apply energy to releasing the authentic church, rather than propping up a dead man walking! A couple of bloggers have commented on the challenge of thinking outside the attractional model, it is so ingrained in us - our education system pumps it into us from the get-go and our church culture reinforces it! Given your experience, what can you see yourself doing, in leading the way into something that is more authentically the church that Jesus Christ expects?
Mark - The detox programme would have to be big enough to take whole churches at a time! It would have to provide counsellors to deal with the complicit co-dependency between “pastors” and church members… but that’s a whole other story
I agree that we need a fresh approach to the Gospel/Kingdom story - but it’s not a novel approach, it’s simply been forgotten. Our inherited “gospel” is NOT good news. Jesus came with good news and fundamentally we’ve been taught to distrust it because there’s “no such thing as a free lunch” We need a return to the life that Jesus valued and the values that Jesus lived…
Love is the answer… so, what was the question?
Beannachd Dia dhuit - “the blessings of God be with you”
A Celtic Son
[...] Alan Hirsch writes, [...]
Hmm.. well let me throw out some more fodder for discussion first. There are two chapters in Roxburgh’s book THE SKY IS FALLING that are helpful here, 3 & 4 are “Developing a Model for Change” and “the Five Phases of Change.” Intriguing.. the diagram he offers on page 54 moves through the phases.. STABILITY.. DISCONTINUITY.. DISEMBEDDING..TRANSITION..REFORMATION. It reminded me of two other frameworks. The first was one developed by Scot Peck based on the work of James Fowler and others. Peck talked about moving from pseudo-community to community in The Different Drum: COmmunity Building and Peace. Very relevant because it is working more at the pastoral level and unless we can help people move through their anxiety they won’t move through change. The other contribution was written by Senge, Schwarmer, Jaworski and Flowers and released last year in a book called PRESENCE. The framework they use is similar to Roxborough but more thorough. (Hmmm.. .I feel a new blog post comin on.. GLORY!) It just happens that a nice summary of that work is available online in PDF format..
http://www.dialogonleadership.org/Theory%20U.pdf
I have a copy of Buker’s paper if you mail me I can provide it.. very helpful and yes there is more detail
Mark, posts 53 & 54…
You downloaded what? Beware of homeland security!
We’ll bail you out and vouch for you -you rascal!
Alan and Celtic son, thanks for your encouraging words. I nearly gave my life (I mean they tried to kill me) for the revitalization thing. My friend, Richard Greene says, “Some of us bear the scars of the cross.” God often uses those with the scars to lead the church out of the safety of the fox hole.
Thanks for your insights Len… because I work within a denomination attempting to do revitalisation I’d be interested to chase this up. (I know Al thinks too much resource is poured in this direction… but when the decision has been made to pour it I suppose one should at least try to do it as well as possible!
Perhaps part of the issue with denominations like mine is that established churches pay affiliation fees… then perhaps there is a Western World mindset of “fee for service”… with some validity I guess.
CS and Len- well spoken.
Mark Maryjane
Re where to start with Wright- how much time do you have? If you time for thick books, I’d recommend his “Christian Origins” series (NT & People of God, Jesus & Victory of God, Resurrection of the Son of God). Less time? Jesus & the Victory of God. Need an overview to get started? “Following Jesus” - a book of sermons, but very quintessentially Wright. I go back to this one as often, or more, as I do to the larger works.
He got noticed because of his work on Paul, but I just happened to start with the Jesus stuff, and I think it’s actually better to approach him that way.
Cheers-
Dana
Thanks Dana. I forgot to reply to this query. I am trying to get through the very thick “Jesus and the victory of God” right now.
Delighted to hear it, Al! Hoping for a post (or an email) on what you think about it.
Dana
Yeah, I really like NT, he is such a good corrective to that anti-historical, docetist, and thus ultimately anti-semetic, view of the New Testament. But to be honest, if I have any reserve, it that is seems to little ole me is that his approach is somewhat historicist and once again (re-)creates that impossible leap between Jesus of history and the Christ of faith. And even more scary, it creates a new kind of priesthood…that of the historian himself. I do worry about priesthoods of any kind. Mediators of the Mediator? Again? No thanks!
Dana - Thanks! Very helpful…
I just started reading McLaren’s “Secret Message of Jesus.” Seems to be helpful for retelling the Story so far.
Looking forward to getting my hands on NT Wright’s stuff.
Alan, about the online training: Are those prices in Australian dollars?
Nope, you wish!
American.
If you can’t handle the cost. Let me know. We have really tried to make is accesable to leaders…particularly those who are n pioneering situations. Other courses offered online are double the cost all round. Did you realize that there is the half price introductory offer?
CelticSon asked: “My question is how do you perceive yourself, or how do you expect listeners to see themselves, as you tell the story of the exilic hero? How do you see the function of the exilic hero in the process of change?”
Some time ago I wrote a piece called The Hybrid as Chosen One , noting that many of the heroes of ancient mythology, modern cinema and real life are ‘hybrids’ of one sort of another – people who stand between worlds – of neither one nor the other, yet strangely of both. They are people who stand in the gaps as few others dare, acting as catalysts for transformation.
Jesus was the ultimate example of this – both God and Human – and calls us to a live life his way, to be in this world but not of this world. I trust you can see where I am going with this.
Exiles are likewise, called to stand between worlds. They cannot call home where they are or where they have come from, they can only forge a new way ahead. I see myself in this vein. I am spiritually Christian but culturally New Age. That’s the hand I have been dealt and my calling. I teach others living between worlds that we are called to worship Christ in our own cultural context, not convert to an insular Christianese subculture. I hope that eventually the tentative networks we are forging across Australia and the world can birth into something more substantial. I draw inspiration from heroes who did the same, like the Apostle Paul, like Saint Patricius. People cannot be told how to live like this, they have to see it for themselves; they have to take the red pill, not just try to imagine it. I find it’s most effective to just invite others to travel with me for a while and tell stories along the way so that they can slowly orientate to all of this.
We cannot expect ALL Christians in the West to take the path of the exile, of the change agent, of the Western missionary. We must remember that Paul considered both Jewish Christianity and Gentile Christianity as legitimate paths. But for us NeoGentile Christians who find the village atmosphere too reified and need to strike out in new directions, well, we need these exile heroes and their exile stories. They feed our imaginations and our memories as scholarly essays and expositional preaching never can. And it’s in these exile stories that we begin to discover the exilic threads in the Christian metastory.
It’s this commitment to living between worlds that inspired me to rename my blog Journeys In Between to tell you the truth. I think those of us who wish to catalyze new kinds of Christianity are called to journey in between worlds and tell stories of cultural gestalt, to tell stories of world-bridging heroes both ancient and not so ancient.
PS. The links seem to have mucked up in the above post but I have reproduced the comment at http://mattstone.blogs.com for those interested.
**Link above fixed! - Admin
Thanks, Alan. Yes, I am aware of the half price offer. It’s still a little steep for me in my situation. I’m sent out of our church plant in Manila and have to be self-supporting (the peso to dollar exchange doesn’t help). Any other options?
[...] 1. Alan Hirsch says it is futile trying to revitalize the church, or a denomination, without first changing the system. And that system should be organic… [...]
I reread chapters 4-6 in Roxburgh last night (SKY IS FALLING) and I am struck this time around by some different things than my first read. I would say, essentially, that he is arguing that a new way of seeing opens the possibility of a new way of living. So, a new paradigm arises in the chaos and pain of discovering that the old paradigm no longer works. Now, we are talking paradigmatic here.. at this level I think there is an awareness that new methods aren’t the answer. There is need for new vision, new questions, adaptation, change.
And I think in some ways it becomes the chicken or the egg question. Which comes first? “We don’t think ourselves into a new way of living; we live ourselves into a new way of thinking” (Rohr). It needs qualification. When we recognize the dissonnance between our seeing and living we become fundamentally disturbed. It’s a liminal place. Our whole being becomes engaged in finding a new way forward: cognitive, emotional, physical and thru networks and conversation.. even communal. If we are held and upheld in community with others who struggle, we learn to dream again.. but corporately. Fiorenza: if we dream alone, its only a dream, but if we dream together it is the beginning of a new reality.. But my basic thot here is that we are separating the processes too neatly. Emergence does involve thinking or reflection as part of an imaginative process. Perhaps we need to reconnect imagination with cognition. Imagination is a more holistic and integrated way of knowing.. more holistic and more holy
Matt,
thanks for outlining your thinking. The motivation of my question was to try to understand the outcome of promoting teaching on exilic heroes. History records some fascinating exilic heroes, equally there are a countless number who live and die, unknown in far flung corners of our globe today, serving in cross cultural mission. I also think that there are some elements of engagement that story brings, where didactic teaching has failed. There are some mystical qualities in reflections on exilic heroes, that the church in the western context, in general, is missing. As much as I like some of the ideas though, I’m not convinced of the conclusions you’ve come to…
I’ll explain what I mean in a second, but what I do want to clarify first is that my questions and comments in this regard are not a “sitting in judgement” - I don’t for a minute conclude that I have the answers… though I do have lots of questions and suggestions! I intend my differing conclusions in a sense as the “wounds of a friend,” basically some concerns of a fellow sojourner. You may have some keys that I need to get my head around - this is all about discussing ideas in fluidity.
Your commitment to mission in the New Age sphere is vital to the authentic church, we need more of it, not less. My motivation does not come from concern to prevent this mode of mission, but to ask questions about what level of influence is exercised, and in which direction. The church in our western context has given over the realm of mystery to the New Age and we need to get back to elements of the mystical, supernatural power of God - that are Biblically sound.
Some of my concern arises from meeting New Agers who have previously been Christians. The predominant tale of their transferring is that there is no “magic” in the church - the church does not practice the exorcism or healing that Jesus did and which we preach - which is generally a fair critique. There is also however often a sub-plot based on bad experiences with leadership in churches, often being misunderstood over their interest in metaphysical thinking. The concern, that lies behind the comments to follow, comes from the fact that several of the people I’ve met began by seeing their New Age environment as a mission field for Christ, but have concluded that the New Age experience is more exciting and mystical, so eventually they have crossed over…
While it’s true that for many their experiences of Christianity have sucked, so have some of mine… The fact that tossers (like me!) are accepted by Jesus and His people, doesn’t justify the conclusion that Christ is not the Son of God… unfortunately it’s also often true that converts are the harshest critics of that which they’ve converted from. The same logic would dictate that a poor experience in hospital, or wrong diagnosis from doctors, would justify giving up on all forms of medicine!
Getting back to your response, I have a sense that “hybrid” is a useful concept to some extent, as a stepping stone along the way, but not as a conclusion. Hybrid reflects a blending of two different forms to produce a third. There is a sense that may be perceived about Jesus Christ, but it doesn’t reflect orthodox thinking that insists that Jesus is uniquely, simultaneously totally human AND totally God - so he’s not a hybrid, he is fundamentally both.
Also Jesus’ call “to a live life his way, to be in this world but not of this world,” is not intended as hybrid. Hybrid implies a blending of two worlds, Jesus calls us to be of the nature of one world, living in another.
Exile is a better term - yet still bears limitations - it is a biblical concept but of the Old Covenant, a temporary deal that was fulfilled in Christ. An exile lives outside of their homeland but their heart is constantly called there. The reNEWed Biblical story says that we are no longer exiles, but live constantly in the presence of God… we ARE children of God IN Christ. The issue is whether we perceive things that way or continue to live in the old story.
Another concern I have with exilic heroes is their isolation. God’s heroes of the reNEWed story build community, they may be nomads in a sense themselves, but they have a goal to establish community wherever they go and their influence is fruitful and multiplies. I believe that’s a fundamental aspect of being created in the image of a relational God. I wouldn’t see Paul as an exilic hero, but as a hero in the sense that he CHOOSES to give up his own comfort, and accepts pain, for a cause greater than himself.
Taking the red pill doesn’t so much motivate us to exilic thinking, as it opens our eyes to see the real story, that is already going on, the true story behind the material facade. This is the story that we need to be sharing, the spiritual reality where our Neo dies and is resurrected, so that we can be reborn. The imaginative retelling of the story reveals that there are dark forces seeking to kill and destroy - but that ultimately there is one hero and the hero is One… I could go on and on retelling the reNEWed story of Christ from the plot of the Matrix.
In one sense you are right about being on a journey in between, but I think that the story is much more expansive than that. I think firstly there is a step to perceive that we are in two places at once, that we are seated with Christ in heavenly places AND sent to go into all the world. But I think that is another step towards an understanding that the spiritual is the REAL and the material is a fabrication. We live in the REAL world and hence are not exiles.
Rather than the language of hybrid or exile, I’d suggest that we need to see ourselves as subversives, living in the world - in one sense - but subverting the lies of the world with the truth. The subversive hero has to break free of the bondage of legalism, for the purpose of re-establishing healthy community. The conclusion of our subversion should be fruitfulness and multiplication - not just in the limited self-serving sense of financial prosperity - but in healthy lives and people healed - reduction of poverty, relationship with the eternal Godhead in body, soul and spirit, mental health and emotional balance… etc, etc, etc…
Where I don’t see elements of fruitfulness in my life, I ask myself, “am I authentically connected to the vine?” (it may be a season of pruning!) I consistently revisit the foundations - my experience of no fruit is often related to wrong roots! Where the church is experiencing no fruit the same examinations and questions are required.
At the same time we are aware that there are seasons; there is a significant period between the planting of a seed and the production of fruit on the vine. Artificial stimulus can produce large growth in the short term, at the expense of the longevity of the plant and the soil. Jesus speaks of fruit that remains. There are two genuine extremes, but also a sliding scale of excuse for continuing to perpetuate something that has long since ceased to bear fruit because it is dead at the root.
I recall a quote by a prior missionary who said “where your roots are your fruits are,” we need to maintain healthy roots.
Slainte
A Celtic Son
Len - good observations.
In your rereading of Roxburgh are you seeing in a new way? The chicken and egg illustration has always been a pain in the arse, because it’s not the right question. We’re not dealing with creation, evolution or the natural consequences of reproduction. It’s like trying to discuss love within the framework of logic - both have a basis in truth, but they’re worlds apart!
Your thought that we are separating the processes too neatly is right, it’s something that’s been pinted out to me about my thinking at times. We are so grounded in duelling dualism that we need to work hard to restore holistic fameworks. The point that you have thrown up is that the answer to the question is not “either-or” but is “both-and.” My frustration with “theology” per se, is that the way we teach it is divorced from relationship and community. It was never the intention that we could “know” about God intellectually without “knowing” God personally. It’s not so much that we need “new vision” as we need a return to the vision that’s been forgotten. The vision IS Christ - Christ in person, Christ in Godhead, Christ in me, me in Christ, body of Christ in Christ…
Knowledge IS a community exercise, and a primary way forward is in communal activity and community reflection, learning by apprenticeship i.e. action-reflection-action-reflection-action-reflection-action-reflection-action-reflection…
Your connecting of holistic and “holy” presents a new paradigm; traditionally “holy” is defined for us as “set apart, separate,” and has been used to separate to set up “them and us.” The concept you raise is closer to the heart of God. You’re right, we do need to reconnect imagination and cognition… and emotion and being and ability and action… Jesus said we ought to know God and love Him with all of our heart and soul and mind and strength. It’s “both-and” ALL is ALL and Christ is in ALL. There’s a reNEWed Vision waiting to be rediscovered and acted on… there is a forgotten way.
Slainte
A Celtic Son
Len.
When you consider the stories of the exilic/apostolic heroes I mentioned above (Joseph, Daniel, Ezekial, Jesus, Peter, Paul) one thing that emerges for me is that many of them were the greatest dreamers and dream interpreters of the Bible. And when you analyse their dreams and dream interpretations it emerges that they were far from incidental to the stories. They were no mere anecdotes. On the contrary they often presaged pivitol turning points in their heroic journeys.
So I agree that paradigm shifts and dreaming seem to go together. I also agree that the dreams arise in the liminal context and not apart from it. What I would like to stress though is our alternate ’system stories’ need to be grounded in primary sources every bit as much as the old ’system stories’ if they are to have traction as ‘Christian’ stories. Paradigm shifts come when the divergence between hard data and old interpretations becomes too dissonant. Paradigm shifts in theology come when new circumstances force up to dig up forgotten biblical treasures. I suppose what I am calling for is a treasure hunt.
Hi Alan
Been trying to follow the comments, but would LOVE to read the book. When, oh WHEN will it finally be available in AU - I’ve had it on order from Koorong for nearly 3 months!!
Shalom
Gordon
DEar Gordon. I hear that it will be in koorong early Feb. Sorry, that’s how long shipping takes.
not sure what’s happened to the template. But lets keep going.
Admin - All fixed - it was Celtic Son’s long word - action-reflection etc that spun it out.
Hi Alan,
Just wanting to point you back to comment #70 and #73. Thanks!
Celtic Son
I have often said one of the neglected arts is how to respectfully disagree (laughs) so no problem mate, I appreciate mutual sharpening. That’s what it’s all about.
On what level of influence is exercised, and in which direction:
The flippant answer is ‘depends’ and ‘both’ but that answer clouds more than it illuminates so I’ll elaborate. My own approach to engaging with New Age / Secularized Spirituality closely follows Hiebert’s model of critical contextualization. I critially ‘adopt’ practices and beliefs that are neutral (such as incence burning and environmental activism), I critially ‘reject’ practices and beliefs that are just not on for Christians (such as channelling and reincarnation), I critially ‘modify’ practices and beliefs that are redeemable (such as meditation and holistic thought), and critially ‘introduce’ practices and ideas from Christian tradition (such as communion and resurrection) as well as stuff I create myself. I am highly critical of uncritical syncretism. I think devotees of Secularized Spirituality and Neo Paganism have some valid critiques of Christianity as it is commonly found in the west and that Christians should be open to hearing them and learning from them. But I equally think Christianity offers some critical challenges to those same devotees and we should not shy away from sharing them, though we should again remember that thing I said about respectful (underline that) disagreement.
How does this work out in practice? Well, for starters the Hiebert model leads me to be somewhat critical of emerging church attempts to engage with the meditation/yoga boom. Not as critical as I am of established church attempts mind you, but critical all the same. Why? Because to date the emerging church has largely contented itself with ‘introducing’ practices from ancient Christian tradition and shied away from ‘modifying’ Eastern and Esoteric practices that are already out there in our culture, waiting to be redeemed. What is more, where introduction has occured it has largely been in the form of unciritcal introduction of medieval Catholic and Orthodox practices. Little consideration of the theological issues this should raise for Protestants. Little consideration of the contextual gap between the medieval world and our own and how the NeoPlatonic undercurrents in the ancient stuff could be problematic for holistic types. And what is even more astounding for me, is when I speak to those doing it I find they are often doing so with little knowlege of what the Bible explicitly says about meditation in the Psalms and elsewhere. This is not best practice contextualization. They irony is that in shying away from the hard task of modifying the questionable stuff, some problematic stuff has been introduced inadvertanly due to a perception of it being safer.
On Christians who have cross over to New Age in the mission field:
Yes, that is a valid concern and I’ve seen it happen myself. But I think you’ve misread me personally. I crossed over from the other direction: from New Age to Christianity. So if I could use an overseas mission analogy - I am not so much a ‘first world’ missionary venturing (somewhat naively) into the ‘third world’ as I am a ‘third world’ native venturing into the ‘first world’ for missionary training I can’t get back home … yet. The liminal space can be a dangerous place, true, but I know what lies on the New Age side of the veil as only a former devotee can. The red pill / blue pill test is part of a screening for suitability - to weed out those who could be too vulnerable as well as those who could be too vitrolic.
On converts as the harshest critics:
Often, but not always. Many who have trod my path from New Age to Christianity end up as spiritual warfare nuts - mainly because Christian conspiracy theorists are often the only ones who seem to care about their former experiences (emerging church included). Classic ex-girlfriend / ex-smoker syndrome. Many fail to consolidate their transition to Christianity for precisely the same reason and langish on the periphery if not slipping back altogether. Some of us value aspects of our former experiences even though we have come to embrace Christ as the one true God. What I would like to do is offer space for those who shy away from paranoiaville. Their is a huge opportunity for the emerging church here if it would only grasp it with both hands rather than focussing so exclusively on ‘post-evangelicals’.
On the Hybrid metaphor:
I agree it’s not a conclusion - intended merely an observation that could serve as a starting point. I wasn’t even seeking to articulate the difference between uncritical syncretism and critical contextualisation at that point, but of course that is crucial.
On the exile metaphor:
I agree that this has it’s limitations too. Merely pointing out that, as far as the Old Testament goes, the exile period serves better as a hermeneutical bridge than the kingdom period. Of course, there again these bridges are only starting points. Oh, and I see the end of exile as a now / not yet thing. Read NT Wright on that!
On isolation:
Ah, one of my most concerning concerns, but an unfortunate reality for the likes of me. This is were the exilic heros are most crucial for me personally - in helping me to stand firm while waiting in joyful hope for something better. Hey if anyone cares to do some C4 contextualization work out in Western Sydney I am all ears.
On the red pill analogy:
I am using the ‘between worlds’ language both horizontally (cross-culturally) and vertically (spiritually).
On what it means to be in between:
I am not sure if you fully got my point on this - visualize two intersecting circles - the transition zone is part of both worlds. Oh, and legalism was never a problem for me. Subversives from the other side have to break free of the bondage of licence. Equally important.
Back to the beginning - the question before us is how do we change the systems story? I am simply saying that the new systems story needs to be equally grounded in the scriptures as the old systems story if it is to be authentically Christian and not every bit as syncretistic as the deconverters that concern you. I believe the wall-defending paradigm (read command + control) has a certain scriptural validity (ah, let us be careful of the ex-girlfriend syndrome at this point too!) but agree with those who would say it has lost much of it’s reasonance with the average person with the collaspe of Christendom. So the question becomes - where in the scriptures would you search for a new Christian paradigm if not with those who had had their world shaken by profound changes? In the exilic and apostolic heros I find hints of a gap-bridging paradigm.
Mark, we’d like to have you. How about you decide what you can afford and contact me and Lance and we can work it out. I’ll let Lance know and he is the guy who runs the show/tech/admin/finances etc.
Thanks, Alan. I’ll get back to you through the back channels rather than here on that. I appreciate it!