don’t emerge before you get missional
This phrase was introduced into our conversation at the Forge Tribal Moot over this last week. It comes from the mind of Tim Hein, our Forge South Australian director. His concern, and I might add ours, is that people who read about new forms and ideas about church and mission, get excited, and end up disillusioned because, after a few months of giving it a go, they decide it wasn’t what it was all cracked up to be. I have to admit that many people do end in this rather sad place. I think largely because they like the idea of emerging church but don’t want to bother about mission as the organizing principle of the church. They emerge before they get missional.
And it is this aspect of the ‘emerging church’ that does worry me–much of it (by no means all) seems to me to be a re-configuration of the inhereted forms of the church and its worship. And much of the literature seems to focus on the renewal of worship and spirituality as if this will resolve the problem. Even scarier is the attempt to re-energize outworn symbols and forms taken from many great movements in the past.
It is no good fossicking around in Christendom as if somehow we will find the solution to our dimemma there. In actual fact it seems to me that this is precisely where we got many our current problems from in the first place. We need more than a critique of the old system, or a simplistic ivoking of ancient rites and rituals. What we need is a positive, dare I say apostolic, vision of the future, is we are going to overcome our churchly inertia and decline.
I have always been challenged by Einstein’s dictum when he said that “…the problems of the world cannot be resolved by the same type of thinking that created those problems in the first place.” Touche Einstein! Apply this to the church and you might get what I am trying to say here.
Comments
85 Responses to “don’t emerge before you get missional”
Leave a Reply
This phenomenon reminds me of the challenges of parenting. Many bemoan the poor job of parenting they received…which can often be traced to multi-generational habits as well! If you don’t learn from the past aren’t you setting yourself up to replicate it? Nothing new here…;)
When it comes to “emerging” (a childbirth term if there ever was one
) church, I believe that we must first and foremost examine our motivations, perspectives and expectations.
We must come to grips with our strengths and weaknesses, our genetic DNA as well as our enironmental and cultural issues, and look long and hard at what we’re getting into.
Nothing more natural than having babies…nothing more unnatural than the consistent years of selflessness required to be a good parent!
So I leave a little something to ponder:
I am a very average sized woman, but I have an extrordinarily large husband — very tall, big hat, big shoulders, long legs, huge feet…you get the picture. For some reason, I was shocked at how large our first son was (the next two weren’t any smaller…). A friend of mine looked at me with an amazed kind of look and said, “Well, you don’t get mice from rats.”
I got her point…if I wanted smaller children, a smaller husband would have been an important consideration.
Same thing with emerging church…if we don’t want “children” that look like Constantine, we should look for another father…say, what about Jesus, instead!
I think Einstein is correct!
Part of the problem exists in that the current church system does not encourage or dare I say allow for creative thinking to help solve problems.
The church is looking for s prescribed tried and true formula or template solution.
The reality is that each setting and context for the church is different and so is the solution.
Think of it like bar b q, its different where ever you go. Texas, carolina, pa dutch or whatever your flavor. It taste different because of its context.
Im praying that God places a desire in every leader of responsibility, to empower creative people to seek the unique place that God has for each church in its context.
Alan,
Einstien also said that imagination is more important than knowledge. I dig what you say about the apostolic vsion of the future…the new forms will emerge out of how we envision the future of God’s dreams today. What might the Patmos dream of revelation 21 mean for our neighbourhoods? I am convinced that the wiping of every tear, the taking away of mourning, no more sea (symbolic of fear) should in some way be realized in the here and now as the church seeks to bring God’s shalom in each and every context. That’s how I’m coming to see the eschatological importance of being God’s people.
Hey Alan,
I am back in the game. Daughters there (Emilia - pictures on my website), Wife is recovering (was a near miss, she nearly died because of heavy bleedings - thanks to god she made it!)
And I agree with you! Missional. Thanks for reminding us all! Blessings from Bjoern
Gross generalization, but I have found that a section of the “emerging church” is made up of angry white young men largely brought up in rather conservative evangelical churches. I do find it kinda strange that this section is very anti anything to do with hierarchy and yet seem to have a magnetic attraction to Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy expressions of church which are marked by rampant hierarchy. I wonder if we would be better using the term missional or organic church for those of us who want to reorientate the church round mission and leave “emerging” to those who are more into the ancient/future worship thing as core of the reforming of the church.
As a church planter pretty much hitting that brick wall that comes from being in a city and knowing virtually no one I could see how people could rapidly become disolusioned with the planting thing if they were in it for kicks and to be cool.
“being in a city and knowing virtually no one”
What led you to this lonely missional frontier James? (I guess the obvious answer is “God”, but some detail might be nice!)
James - good on ya for the church plant, we just got back from Melbourne doing that. Don’t worry, you’ll meet people. The bars and pubs and cafes are all great places to start
It’s funny you mention young white guys against organization but into ancient rituals. I think this is an aspect of postmodern culture they’re trying to tap into.
1. In some cases, they want to reconnect with their spiritual heritage; they love where the church has come from, and are trying to understand the motivations, emotions, and feelings of their forefathers of the faith.
2. However, so I don’t sound naiive, there are definitely many others who do the ritual thing because it’s “spiritual” and therefore exotic and cool, and they do it to be “different” from everybody else.
I think in the first case, they really need to be careful; as the church emerges from Christendom into postmodernity, these churches can have a tendency to get so locked into “let’s be historical” that they almost pine for the good ‘ol days. Now, the other thing is that most churches would be very WISE to do what they do once in a while. The missional church needs to keep in mind where it has come from, and not just the patristic church of the first and second centuries, but also the many varied expressions through two thousand years of history. Not all were good, but ALL can be learned from.
The second form pretty much has to go. Doing something simply because it is hip and cool is probably not the best way to germinate a church, and frankly, it’s exactly what so many people are doing these days - they do the next cool thing as it happens, either “missional” church or “emerging” church or “postmodern worship” or whatever trend is currently in their radar. This is where keeping a close watch on history can have its advantages: it gives you ROOTS to sink into the soil so that your tree can grow upwards.
Peggy, I must respectfully disagree with you. Well, ok, not totally, you’re right in saying that if the Constantinian churches are our ONLY influence, we’re screwed. But I also think there is much to be garnared from the history of the church - Patrick, the Apostolic fathers, Wesley, the Chinese Church. We can learn from the other examples, like the Australian church or the church under Constantine (to learn what not to do) - perhaps this is some of what Al means when he says “don’t emerge before you get missional”.
It’s never as simple as just ridding ourselves of all the “old” stuff and using all the “new” stuff. That’s the problem - we have two thousand years of history weighing us down (or lifting us up, depending on which parts and your attitude towards them), and contrary to popular belief, it will never just “go away.” With a balanced perspective on history, the church can move forward or it can be held back. It’s up to us how we handle it.
Alan, There is nothing that energizes me more than missional thinking, entrepreneurship, creative ideas, new things, new church!! The possibilities are endless but for Kingdom-shaped impact the mission must be Spirit-led. The impactful, visionary leader emerges out of the Spirit’s power and wisdom not on human calculation of the past or future. Einstein was correct in his quote “…the problems of the world cannot be resolved by the same type of thinking that created those problems in the first place.” The other type of thinking is the Spirit-led visionary who has a passion to the call. A missional leader straddles the Spirit’s apostolic work.
Janet we as a family relocated from the West of Scotland with a friend to Edinburgh the growing area of Scotland to begin a new subversive cell for the Kingdom. Our church plant is essentially a parachute drop into the city which is not ideal but was necessary in this case because we were moving to a new geographic area and because we didn’t want to bring along a load of people with inherited church DNA.
Chris I am totally with you on the role of history in developing a contemporary missional ecclesiology I found Craig Van Gelder’s book The Essence of the Church compelling in this regard.
Bless Albert Eistien!
Emerging and missional are the ecclesiastical buzz words of the day. The “emerging” title is so broad that it seems get thrown around to the point that it refers to all new or experimental expressions of the church, some of which are very missonal, some are not.
When I first began to read about “the emerging church”, some things resonated and some did not. But now that I am beginning to grasp the missional concept, I am feeling a new surge of relief and creativity, as though I have found a new spiritual home, at least a peg to hang my hat on.
Church for only the redeemed, sucks! It becomes stale, ingrown, and self-serving, not matter what the outer trappings or worship style. I find 1 Peter 2:9
to be a beautiful description of a redeemed community within a community to represent Christ. We have to have our purpose at the heart of all we do. Then from there, open the doors to a flood of creativity to accomplish that purpose.
Alan, your writings have been an important part of my journey. Thank you!
Alan, thank you for touching on this topic … a few of us who attended the Conference in Long Beach were just talking about this last night… and your synopsis hits home.
Thinking out loud here: It appears to me that we really cannot separate the words “missional” and “emerging” but in light of your introduction paragraph, one “could attempt” to emerge before becoming missional. Do you think we can attempt to be missional but without a plan to emerge? Not sure if this will go anywhere but just wanted to reverse the logical thinking and see if that would bring anything into the light as well.
Yoon - spot on mate. I think we HAVE to emerge once we’ve become missional, but we can “emerge” into all sorts of things, missional only being one of them.
James, you know I have always wondered about that angry white men into ancient rituals thing! But they way you said it made me laugh out loud. God help us!
Hullo…
I have not posted for a while. Much of my time in recent weeks has been spent journeying with friends through some of the most devastating situations. Around them I encounter the destabilising, rippling impact their experience has on the lives of their circle of family and friends - including my family. The overwhelming immediacy of their pain infringes on their ability to comprehend much other than the locus of the pain… and in the whirlpool, relationships are defined. Those who have the closest relationships, who care most deeply, who love most, come sensitively to their sides seeking ways to serve and heal. Those less close stand at a distance, ready to serve if they are called upon…
There has been anger - including at a God who did not protect them - there have been questions… some of which I’ve left for God to answer… What this has crystallised further for me is that there is a paradigm shift beyond “missional…” I have tried - generally unsuccessfully - to express something deeper in other threads on this Blog.The root of it is present in many of the comments made in this post on “don’t emerge before you GET missional”
“Many bemoan the poor job of parenting they received…which can often be traced to multi-generational habits…”
“…wiping of every tear, the taking away of mourning, no more sea (symbolic of fear) should in some way be realized in the here and now as the church seeks to bring God’s shalom”
“you’ll meet people. The bars and pubs and cafes are all great places to start…”
“we as a family relocated”
“a redeemed community within a community”
Getting missional is a FUNCTION it is a response generated by a DNA that has a different focus - getting Missional is a fruit rather than a root… The root that underlies many of the comments made here is “relationship.” Healthy relationship is the “good news”… it’s ontologically who we are created to be… and it is the state that Christ came to restore. Incarnation is all about restoring relationship. Incarnation in the past weeks has meant mourning with those who mourn, weeping with them - no smug answers, just sitting in the depths… not striving, just resting - often in sadness - in the presence of the God who sits in the depths too; the God who knows the pain and weeps too for the children who are lost in this all-too-human depravity.
The Eternal relationship in the Godhead is fruitful and multiplies, producing creation and ultimately humanity - created in God’s image for relationship with Him… In Genesis 1
& 2 there is no mission, there is no judgement, there is no brokenness - just harmony. Created in God’s image we are destined to be blessed, be fruitful and multiply. That is the primal covenant - relationship with God… that is the good news that Jesus comes to reNEW.
Genesis 3
describes the breaking of relationship; this is where the evangelical gospel begins - with a problem, rather than actually with God - so we end up with “angry white young men largely brought up in rather conservative evangelical churches” (who can’t jump!) What is it about our brokenness that is “good news” - that’s the bad news - the focus on humanity and human behaviour is not good news! Like James, I find that is still the root paradigm for much of the emerging church - and that some of the struggles are in trying to do “missional” when at heart we are still living with a message of judgement. We need a reNEWed paradigm - the Bible begins in Genesis 1
, the good news begins with God, the good news begins with primal relationship formed in eternity. This needs to be the core of our message.
Our God is a relational God, that is His nature - “God IS Love.” When relationship is broken THEN God becomes missional - in pursuit of His children who are running from Him, because of their perception of the damage to their eternal relationship. When “sin” appears THEN God acts in a role as judge, it is not who God IS - it is a function in response to an action, not ontologically part of who God is… or intended to be part of the nature of humanity. “Mission” is what God does to restore relationship; mission is the journey, relationship the destination. The missional approach is far better than the attractional approach, but it is still a step removed… mission is a fruit, rather than a root - the root of “Apostolic Genius” is relational - mission is a consequence of relationship. Jesus closest crew built relationship together. Peter and Paul have a face to face argument, founded on relationship.
As Genesis relates the story, Adam and Eve did not have to be told they were sinners - as our evangelical heritage demands - or told to hide from God, or told to cover up their nakedness - the purity of God and their own lack of purity was self evident. The goal of the authentic church is to reveal the nature of Jesus Christ - not focus on humanity’s brokenness (we do deal with brokenness, but it is not the primary focus). When people have a revelation of the risen Christ, their weakness is self evident… it doesn’t require others to judge. Ecclesia is a gathering of people recognising their Lord together, recognising their humanity together and journeying together in love, working together to see each part holistically restored to health and so the whole body restored to health.
The pain of our world IS the consequence of broken relationship. Jesus comes to reveal to us what it is like to live life in harmonious relationship in the Godhead - He says what He hears the Father say, He does what He sees the Father do… He restores people and situations holistically - He is on a mission reNEWing the primal, relational covenant we see outlined in Genesis 1
& 2 - which He initiated, which He sustains and which He restores. He is broken to pay the price of the broken relationship and therefore the relationship is restored from heaven’s perspective.
When we begin to read the reNEWed Testament from the perspective of restoring relationship, we begin to recognise that at the root of all that is going on is a mission to restore relationship - the mission is NOT the focus, it is simply the means to the end - which is restored, reNEWed relationship. The aim is relationship… authentic ecclesia is about relationship. Then we are joined in co-mission with God, to restore people in relationship with Him and with one another.
Relationship IS the root… mission is a fruit. To truly be missional we need to be tight in relationship with God, then we catch His heart for relationship with His lost children and THEN we are missional. We catch God’s heart to see people restored, through intimacy with God… our response is to initiate relationship - the authentic church shares meals and belongings, gathers together and celebrates their relationships with God and with one another. Which is why the place to start church, to meet people is places of gathering - “bars and pubs and cafes” - people are ontologically designed to seek out relationship. When asked what the most important teaching is, Jesus responds, love God, love people - relationship…
The code is relational (rDNA ) the consequence is that the genetic information results in the development of a cell structure that is replicating in nature - it is fruitful and multiplies - and missional in function… which sounds a lot like the early church and the Chinese church movement!
“don’t emerge before you get missional” might even be expressed at a deeper level… “don’t get missional before you ARE relational.”
Slainte
a Celtic Son
A number of thoughts come to mind related to this thread.
Having worked on staff (not faculty) at a theologically conservative seminary for 10 years, one of the more intriguing comments I’ve heard came from a student who said, “The seminary taught me how to preach, not how to prepare creatively so that my wife could stand to hear me preach for the next 30 years.”
I’m not aware of any seminary or even moderately-known leadership training program that devotes any significant equipping on creativity theory, creativity skills for individuals and teams, or strategic foresight skills (i.e., futurist skills). (Please tell me I’m wrong, and someone out there is doing something about this!) So, it would seem the best we do in equipping leaders for strategy skills is purely analytical and programmatic, in the realm of the mind. It does not incorporate: creativity and foresight, which involves our imagination; or human systems, which considers emotions and relationships and family/generational dynamics; or paradox and complex systems, which addresses biblically appropriate mysticism. I think at least all of those layers are needed for a holistic paradigm (not program) for critical thinking about being both missional and contextual. But we’ve limited ourselves, at least in our traditional and transitional training approaches … so what can we expect but pure pragmatism, formulas, or searches for tidy tips and templates?
Also, instead of just yelling “hip-hip-hooray and hallelujah” about being on board with missional mindsets, I wonder if we should consider whether there is/are even larger-wiser-more-holistic integration point(s) for “emerging” paradigms than missional. I know missional is far larger than church planting methods and models, but does it go far enough? This might be a great time to ask ourselves that question …
Also, I know there are leaders who sincerely want to make an impact in the world of emerging cultures. However, without all the hard paradigm work and the getting rid of isn’t-this-just-too-cool factor, it ends up as well intentionized, but poorly contextualized–enslaved to the infrastructures inherent in the existing paradigm that is either too small or off-focus in its integration. As Vincent van Gogh said, “Do not quench your inspiration and your imagination; do not become the slave of your model.”) Or, in the rather vivid phraseology from a friend of mine here, “Modern church in postmodern drag.”
I was typing my thoughts in entry #15 while Celtic Son was posting his (#14). I deeply appreciate his perspective there, and believe he challenges us head-on to what I was hinting at, that *missional* is still too small a (dare I say …) “box” for our paradigm, even if it is larger than some others. Selah …
Alan, I finally finished the “Shaping” book…I have to process a little more before I jump into TFW. At least I got the flavor of the TFW in Long Beach! I continue to be amazed at how the Spirit gave me a vision and then brought me to those who have provided the words to help me describe and implement it! Thanks, again.
James, I resonate with your circumstance…I have many times been dropped into a place with no friends. It is a very lonely time. I will pray that God will speak deeply into your heart during this time as only happens when we must rely totally on the Eternal Community for the meeting of our deepest needs — personally and missionally.
Chris, sorry for the seeming non-sequiter…I’m still new to blogging and I frequently get lost in threads and forget to carry context forward to new threads here in TFW-land!
I will try to do better….
My point was that we must always be careful what model we choose to follow. When we get caught up in ANY human’s ideas, Christ can get subtly pushed away from the center…and sometimes even out of the door. We are at risk of using hybrid seed-substitute (ref. Neil Cole) instead of the true seed (sperma) that comes from the Holy Spirit.
A new church may very well be birthed with seed-substitute, but it, sooner or later, begins to resemble the human who provided the seed-substitute as much as (sometimes more than) Jesus Christ.
I endeavor to learn more of what Christ looks like from every church experience I encounter. But when it comes time to plan for multiplication, I want to be sure the seed’s DNA is pure Jesus, period. We must be patient and consistently apply Alan’s Christology > Missiology > Ecclesiology formula.
Every human leader that is followed long enough will provide both positive and negative learning opportunities. And, yes, it is very much a matter of a balanced perspective. So we must do our best to go back again and again to discern what Jesus did in his context and what he wants us to do in the various and changing contexts in which we find ourselves from day to day. The APEST ministry/leadership model is a great check and balance that has been missing for too long…
And that means that sometimes we’ll get it right and sometimes we won’t…we just must be committed to failing forward — that’s part of the balance! But even it we get it absolutely right…we very possibly might get ostracized or persecuted or killed. But, contrary to what some think, the life of sacrifice for the sake of Kingdom mission is NOT supposed to be considered a negative example.
One of the things that resonated with me from Alan’s first book (and, Yoon, from his sessions at the Long Beach conference, too!) was the notion of being flexible with exactly how things WILL emerge — without trying to shape the form before the essence of contextual missional thinking has done it’s (often surprising) work.
Celtic Son…you are missed in this discussion. Be blessed in whatever is taking your time these days!
Ok…that is just too strange that I was thinking of you, Celtic Son, just as you were posting your comment…I’m going to go and read what everyone has posted since I began responding to comment #12!
It’s nice to be missed… which of course is a response consistent with my assertions about the primal nature of “relationship!” Thanks Peggy and to others.
These are difficult days, the experiences are ones which have great significance in dealing with the past and the future. I am conscious of the challenges of measuring my influence, to take care to enable God’s influence and at times to simply shut up and listen. My blogging community, here and elsewhere has taken second place to those whose flesh and blood surrounds me… but I have been no less conscious of reflections on my God.
The brutal reality of the dark side of life’s experiences sharpens the reality of choosing to engage with God. My friends and I will not remain the same - we will move closer or we will retreat further, either way we are challenged to make choices - to retreat further into hiding or to suffer the pain to be better known. It’s my prayer that we are moving closer and being better known…
beannachd Dia dhuit - blessings of God be with you
a Celtic Son
Yes, my Celtic brother…we absolutely must be relational before we get missional. Mission without relationship can just be more dead form, eh? Time to read 1 Cor 13
again, it seems. I am grateful for your loving, incarnational service among those whose grief you take as your own.
Brad, I am afraid you are right…imagination and creativity are too often the shackled servants of the performance rather than that which brings forth a fresh, unlooked-for vision of the Truth.
I co-taught a class on Myth, Fantasy and Imagination in Literature at my alma mater, oh, 15 years ago…and it was like pulling teeth to get those young people to see that their imaginations were even in a box/prison. Another culture shock issue here, I think, like we discussed on the Cultural Distance thread.
It will take a little longer, I’m afraid, before the educators that actually WILL embrace some of this get around to figuring out how to balance left brain and right brain learning. Like Alan says, it is very threatening to risk the new when it is easier and more acceptable to do the familiar. I am hopeful (because I’m the eternal optimist) that some of the things we are doing — Forge being one of them — will begin to provide actual leaders whose imaginations have been set free to lead the way.
I am also hopeful, Brad, that there are more of those with minds like yours out there in the mix waiting for the right time to jump! We will have to be patient…some more of that already/not yet Hebraic mindset.
I can see that it will take a while for us all to catch up with the stream of comments….
Celtic Son, I know what it is to sit in the darkness of the pit with only the company of the God who sits in the pit with his beloved….it is a painful, piercing peace.
I join in your prayer that each of you will embrace the grace and mercy that binds hearts and minds together while it binds up wounded experiences and emotions.
And I know that God will grant you the wisdom and discernment you seek as you lead according to the needs and readiness level of those God has put in your sphere of influence.
I will rejoice in your presence and be mindful of your absence, brother.
[...] Here if I could insert something intelligent by way of advice, I would take it from an Aussie and pass it on. Namely, Alan Hirsch is cautioning, don’t emerge before you get missional… which is part of what I was trying to say in the previous paragraph ;^) [...]
Alan is saying, I believe, don’t jump off the ship until you have a missional life boat!
Jesus gave us the missional life boat. It’s all about understanding the significance of the death and resurrection of Jesus for all of us (the reached and unreached). We must become dissatisfied with ‘going to church’ on Sundays so we can ‘be the Church’ on mission with Jesus through the week and everyday!
We need to jump overboard, but let’s not jump overboard until we see the need to jump in the missional life boat. Otherwise, I’m for letting the sharks eat you.
Are you in the missional life boat or are you in the mouth of the shark?
… and to A Celtic Son, my apologies for passing over all your comments about current painful circumstances you are experiencing with friends upon the journey. I am ashamed of my not having expressed any sense of sadness or consolation. I trust that I am not always so rude, and yet, ironically, by not saying anything, I proved my own point about how that which should remain a relational integration point can quickly slip into an informational integration point. If this all becomes about expression of ideas, then I’ve certainly lost the root … and what kind of “fruit” is it?
Thanks Peggy, your thoughts are
Brad,
my point is not to solicit consolation, but precisely to keep it real. My pain is referred pain, not nearly as significant as that of my friends - yet it is the call of all who take the name of Christ. Authentic truth makes a difference in life - too much that we pass of as great “theology” does/is not!
As much as what I do and think, is shaped by my understanding of my relationship with God - both experientially and Biblically - my understanding of my relationship with God is also shaped by what I do and what I think… Praxis and Theory/Theology develop together… My concern, as yours, is that we are so easily caught up in the trap of informational integration - or just plain showing off how smart we think we are… and sometimes how many BIG words we can squeeze into one sentence or paragraph
It’s increasingly clear to me that the core issue is relationship, and the core outcome is fruitfulness - “where your fruits are, your roots are.”
Bob, I’m not in agreement with the missional lifeboat image - the either/or is unhelpful. It concerns me that the lifeboat may just be the church building turned on its roof and floating down the river with parishioners perched on pews singing “Onward Christian Soldiers”.
The missional lifeboat image suggests to me that Jesus takes us out of the real world and wraps us in a warm towel, away from all the badness!!What Jesus did was help us to understand that we can walk on water…. or at least we can swim, that we are good swimmers and that we have the capability of helping others, teaching them to swim, then teaching them to teach others to swim. The sad reality of our present situation is that sometimes the sharks will close in, sometimes we will encounter pain - but He’s in the water with us, He has our best interests at heart and it is His blood they smell.
It takes faith to avoid the either/or and get out on the water… keeping your eyes fixed upon Him who is the author and perfecter of our faith…
Blessya
A Celtic Son
Alan, I really love what you have to say but you have GOT to get your commenters under control, they’re using your blog to write novels *smirk* In all seriousness, the comments are far too long to really read and follow so I’ll just say that I think we have to be careful not to completely abandon anything but cautiously, prayerfully, thoughtfully and prophetically do what is the Spirit’s leading to be the most effective in our mission.
Mate you are right. A lot of so called emerging stuff or missional stuff is just the same stuff sexied up a bit. People looking for the new programme etc. If you want to do the current stuff do it…there will those it works for. If you want to the new stuff you need to change not only the operational style but the core of what you believe about church etc. My view is that this is too hard for most….sadly though many try and end up watering down the new. Among other results it means we hear how it deosn’t work rather than hearing the wrong people tried it. To misquote and pervert Chesterton “the problem with the new missional church is not that it has been tried and found wanting…it is thatit has not been tried or at least tried by the wrong people with the wrong thinking!”
Hey Ari…
as one of the long-winders I do wish I could condense my thoughts more effectively at times. We have tended to use this blog as a space to try to work out our thinking - using Alan’s posts as a guiding light. When I have tried to condense my thoughts into fewer words it’s actually created more confusion rather than less!! There are times when I have had to re-read posts to get the point, but I’ve never found that I can’t read and follow if I take some time to make the effort and I’ve always found that’s a worthwhile trip.
From another perspective… condensation tends to happen when hot air hits a cold surface - fortunately here I’ve found a warm surface for my hot air and no responding condensation
Slainte
A Celtic Son
Thanks everyone, for the long and short responses. Just want you to know I am not off the planet, just too darn busy to respond properly. Don’t let this stop you. I am enjoying the give and take.
Its all very well being missional before you emerge, but is it possible that you can emerge within Christendom? Is Christendom Christocentric?
And, Ari, as another of the long-winders, I’ll just say “ditto” to my brother, Celtic Son’s comments
We know you’re busy, Alan…and you’ll jump in when you are able. In the meantime, thanks for graciously providing this space for CS and me (and the rest of the gang, too, of course) to process our hot air!
Dave, as the last few posts will reveal. I have my doubts about whether the Christendom paradigm can really produce the missional fruit that is required in our day. The power for renewal and mission however, is in the people of God whatever form they might take. There is hope.
proverbially short
paradigmatically long,
it’s nice Alan likes
the lengths of all songs
i may be blog-clogging
but there’s a tap to my tune
that i hope makes a difference
since we’re dancing for clues
[okay, so not the world's best poem, but then, yuh gotta get thru the mediocre ones to get an occasional gem. yup-yup ...]
There are some examples of radical change toward missional within traditional mainline denominations in the U.S., which would reflect many of the structures and approaches of Christendom. *Hit the Bullseye* by Paul Borden (Abingdon Press, 2003) gives one case study of a Western U.S. region of American Baptist churches, where in the late 1990s only 15% were growing, and 85% plateaued or declining. Through a radical return to the Great Commission as the integration for the introverted congregations’ paradigm, within about 7 years the percentage of growing churches went from 15% to over 70%, with most growth from new conversion, not mere “sheep shuffling.” Much of the approach functions within more traditional/hierarchical leadership structures, but the re-focus on the Great Commission helped change the culture from congregation-as-consumers to congregation-as-activists/producers.
All that said, I would suggest that about the best that traditional (and perhaps transitional) church paradigms can produce is being *missions-minded.* And that is not really the same as being *missional,* despite sincere interests in wanting to make a Kingdom impact and supporting missionaries and missions activities. Christendom and traditional missions approaches just aren’t rooted in a rigorously holistic paradigm which is required for living missionally.
Barging in again, so what if you get missional first and then emerge? You only need to get missional, don’t you - who cares about the emergent bit?
And when the strategic marketing committee has completed its deliberations, deciding they must get missional first, what do they do about the product they’re selling? Its still the same old wine.
If someone is really interested in your message, in your “product”, won’t they want to push past all the academic jargon, push past the re-assembled missional team incarnating its dna in a post-modern context, and get to the heart of your message? Someone really keen to sample your wares won’t want the frustration of negotiating through the mazes being discussed here.
And to conclude, what is an emergent church? A sub-cultural, precisely profiled and matched group of post-modern people that only associate with each other without the flexibility to broaden their appeal?
Hi David…
Like you I have concerns with some of these issues - see comment #14 previously on this thread - but I’ve found I get the opportunity to engage in creative discussion by approaching things in a less confrontational manner. Aggressively pushing an opinion is more likely to be ignored than receive any reasonable answer… Some of your points have had credibility, but in all honesty I’m not inclined to invest too much time considering those thoughts, when they are presented with all the tact of a Molotov Cocktail lobbed through a window! Based on my interaction with others on this blog, I doubt if any others are likely to respond to your provocation either - and your presentation has managed to irritate Alan in the past - though, that’s my thoughts and I don’t presume to act as a spokesperson.
I believe that the root issue in all of this is relational - if you read through a number of the comments throughout various posts, you should be able to discern the development of a level of relationship among contributors. We are globally, denominationally, culturally, ethnically diverse, but seeking to encourage, challenge and build one another up for the sake of Christ and His Kingdom. Your approach does little to engage relationally - hence any real issues you raise will tend to be ignored, no matter how relevant and useful they might otherwise be…
If you genuinely wanted to engage in discussion, then it would be vital to develop an approach that respects the thoughts of those who are already involved; then your thoughts would likewise be treated with respect. If your approach is to continue to present things in presumptious, argumentative and judgemental fashion then it’s unlikely to be productive? If you’ve no wish to change, then this blog - seeking to discuss the possibilities of change - is not really of much use to you anyway, so it would be wiser not to waste your time and energy “in the frustration of negotiating through the mazes being discussed here.”
beannachd Dia dhuit - blessings of God be with you
a Celtic Son
I agree entirely Celtic Son. Learn some e-manners David and you might get a real hearing. You’re shouting at us. It doesn’t evoke a good response in your audience. Chill out.
Brad, I look forward to engaging with you a whole lot more closer to your home sometime soon. Its a good poem. Better than my latest productions.
e-manners, huh?
I’m sure people here are emotionally resilient enough to see past the “elephant in a china shop” approach my comments take. Are you only speaking for yourself, Celtic? Sure, I wouldn’t take the same approach when talking to a group of elderly women or a bunch of school kids. I have more respect for people here, than you appear to have, Celtic.
Anyway, why not take the approach of improving yourself first, rather than trying to correct me? Or is Christianity incapable of delivering that sort of insight?
So, Alan, if the power for mission is in the people of God whatever form they might take - does that mean that even in Christendom churches ( one form) that power is there but it is not *possible* (and never was possible) to be unleashed?
If so, are you saying that Christendom communities are not able to have an impact on their surrounding culture?
[...] Sein Post dazu ist sehr lesenswert: [...]
[...] Get missional before you become emergent. A lot of wisdom here. [...]
I was just giving you all a hard time. One thing I appreciated though, just a little tip, is when people have a lot to say that they create posts on their own blogs and then link back to the comments - I think you all have great things to say but I find for myself personally, I’m more compelled to read a cogent post that is long than long fragmented comments.
A good tip, Ari, and mebbe it’s time for me to get back to blog/clog/ing on my own site. (I pretty much stopped for two years while having to write huge volumes of technical stuff at work.)
It has been helpful to have this forum, though, especially for those of us seeking to clarify what we think in the culturally contorted world as it is emerging.
One thing that I find intriguing AND disturbing is that learning styles throws in a whole additional layer into the mix of culture clash in this era. The unique ways we process information and experiences lies at the core of our humanity as individuals and in cultures. And that’s part of what makes international, intergenerational, intercultural blogging so difficult.
Some of us process linearly, internally, and analytically, and it is far easier to create a cogent statement, whether short or long.
Some of us process verbally and non-linearly, so we truly do not know what we think about a subject or question or issue until we have burbled about it for a while. And it is usually the last thing we say rather than the first that is what we believe. Since it takes time and is circuitous, often we cannot find others who are willing to listen.
On top of that, some of us are very paradoxical, or multimodal in ways we process information. So our own minds are swimming in seemingly contradictory information that we’re trying to find some reasonable patterns in. We can make a reasonable case for opposing directives, and it can be really tough to make decisions! And our output tends to be highly complex, seemingly disordered, perhaps free-association-like. And not everyone likes that or gets it that we’re just doing what comes naturally, according to the ways we are “wired” to think.
Does that make sense?
Alan, your post title holds a near-prophetic relevancy for the emerging church, because if we fail to heed this warning we will repeat the Church’s past failures.
Long before we had the terms, emergent/missional, I said that churches had a cart-before-the-horse approach to ministry. What I meant was that we forced mission to serve the institution, rather than tailoring the institution to serve the mission. Form should only evolve around missional needs and vision, never for the sake of form itself.
The end result can only become replication of more Towers of Babel.
We MUST be missional first.
p.s. Of course, in random learning style boomerang fashion, I realized later (after I got to work) the main point of what I was attempting to say in entry #45, which was: Thanks for persevering through the muddlings some of us are going through in our attempts to sort through our stuff. It helps …
Brad, I think that makes a lot of sense. I think that’s why we have to get away from building churches PRIMARILY on stylistic/surface differences.
Webb - I think many many many people in the church community have prophetically sensed that. it’s nice to see it finally fleshing out in larger numbers
Hey, Brad, you nailed it for this verbal, non-linear, paradoxical, multimodal, free-association-type sister. Especially as you articulate the value of working through this together before we try to take it to someone who can’t/won’t slog through the process with us. I thank you (and CS and Alan and others) for your willingness to listen to me so that I can finally get to that last thought…God bless you! (Say, none of us have been praying for patience, have we? Ari?
)
And Dave (#40), according to the measure the Holy Spirit is given freedom to change individual hearts, his power will be released to do his work.
I think what we’re generally talking about here is not what is possible (or impossible) in any given cultural circumstance but what may be more optimally effective as we strategically and critically consider where and how the Holy Spirit wants us to engage going forward from where we find ourselves today.
The emphasis is moving away from simple addition to exponential multiplication, yes; but God is still interested in each one of those who bear his image, and is not willing that any of them should perish. The church in its many and varied manifestations throughout history has always had lights that shine Christ’s truth in the darkness.
We must not despair, but we must strive continually to be the very best stewards of the riches and mysteries entrusted to us in Christ.
May we be found faithful instead of just critical.
I’ve run into a few churches that call themselves ‘emergent’ but the only difference is the outward appearance. Candles, couches, artwork, etc. The ethos of the church is still pretty modern and mainstream.
That’s not bad (or good), it just is.
But then what makes them different?
What a great post Allen. If we aren’t willing to do something different we’re going to get the same dismal, dissillusioned, and depressing results.
What we need to do is look at how we live, as individuals and as a community and be intentional about living differently in a holisitic approach to following Jesus.
A different colored bandaid covering a wart, still doesn’t remove the wart.
Hi, This is my first posting here. I am excited by what I read and thankful for all who are struggling to grasp what God is up to in these days!
To A Celtic Son… I could not agree with you more. One of the fears that I have (and maybe this is just because every time I hear “missionality” being so strongly emphasized as the main point I am distracted by images of the marketing schemes of the modern church)is that we will miss the tremendously deep need for people to be in relationship before they can be missional.
In this thread someone said, “Church for the redeemed only sucks.” I agree. But, what is a church for the redeemed only” look like? I would understand it to be a body that is in reality a Christians Only social club or an insulated place of worship-inspired ecstasy.
But, what about those communities that are created, first and foundationally, for deep ministry to people with real needs and wounds that keep them from being able to come into a living relationship with God and/or with others… and, as an out growth of that transformation, assists them to become people who bring the love and power of Jesus to others… offering their reNEWed lives creatively and loving with those around them? (Sorry for the horribly run-on sentence.)
I have found that these types of ministries are viewed as inwardly focused… “church for the redeemed”. “But, as for me and my house…”
Well, my wife and I are called to just such a ministry… to form just such a community (I guess somewhat reminisent of Celtic monasticism… but made up of families and singles… whosoever may come…). Creating an intentional community that desires to set these “misfits” free to love God and love others… and then set them free to be “Jesus with skin on”.
Big Blessings, Mark
I believe being missional is my function.
It matters not if Im emerging, traditional, contemporary, simple, mega or what not. Without missional I’ve got nothing.
IS the IC the vehicle for missional? nope I dont think so. But can all forms of “church” move in a missional direction? I believe they can.
No one form will be the proper or only contextualization of missional. It remains to be seen what forms will “emerge.”
Mark, you and your run-on-sentences are both welcome and safe in this place! I encourage you to wander through the many other threads of this blog…where you will find many kindred spirits and encouragement for the burden you carry!
And remembering your context (as creating an internally-strong relational community from which to offer Christ’s grace and reconciliation to those around you) can help insulate you from any generalized comments about groups that are inappropriately “inwardly focused”.
Be encouraged in your obedience to the call you and your wife have been given…most of us here march to the beat of a different drum as well!
Ahhh Jerry. you are onto something here. I do believe all churches can be missional. What however most churchers struggle with is being incarnational. That is a topic for the future, but worth noting here.
Thanks Alan I truly believe that becoming incarnational is the key.
from a “meta” point of view, i’m intrigued that the discussion in this thread has occasionally shifted from being missional to what’s underneath being missional. i appreciate your comments jerry on missional as a function, and (my interpretation here) of incarnational as a state of being. Be then do seems a better route.
do you find anything even deeper underneath being incarnational?
are some of us incarnational but not contextual?
is being incarnational sufficient for being contextual - does it automatically make us contextual?
rephrase: where does being contextual come from, and is contextuality a BE or a DO or a both/and thing?
In the traditional/institutional/current model so much debate and discussion and bad feeling along with splits are the reality when trying to make changes in very small decisions let alone a major one like going from maintenance/programmed church to a missional essence. Let’s face it the Sunday morning service and the accompanying programs are Holy Grail material to those in the traditional church. We can talk about being missional as long as we keep the programs running. Mission is second to that and always will be. Furthermore the traditional model requires a lot of time, energy and resources to keep it going. If I have an 8 hour job with an hour or two of commuting time and have a family I need to tend to plus I have to go to Wednesday night bible study, practice two hours a week for worship time, go to once a month congregational meetings, leadership meetings, volunteer for Sunday school (because I am the last one on the list to ask and there are three classes to fill), and because people see that I am involved I tend to get asked for all sorts of other things…. when do I have time to be missional. When does anyone have time to be missional? On top of that I have to give 10% to keep that system going. As a result I don’t have any money left over to help my neighbor. That point I think sums it all up for me.
Will I give myself to programs or will I serve people? My wife and I want to serve people rather than the programs. Traditional church is no longer an option for us.
I have to go to work now but i will share a story that I hope will clarify what I am saying………. next time.
Frank, what you are describing is exactly the place where my husband and I have come…we can no longer ignore the mission in order to continue to support the program.
Not only do I have no time/energy/money to spend on my lost neighbors, I have no authentic experience of community (communitas?) to bring them to, should they even be interested in the Gospel!
What does it say when one of the pastors doesn’t really want to bring any of her neighbors “to church”? It is not a good place…and we are relieved to be released from that situation and to be gearing up to establish a dynamic incarnational communitas (the “be” part) in order to be 100% missional (the “do” part) and we are excited see what emerges!
By the way, being relational in the program context frequently leads to exhaustion and disillusionment because it is a continual giving out that does not get replenished. I end up investing in pseudocommunity…and I just am not interested in any more of that! My relational activities become a commodity for the consumers of the programs. This is an undercurrent of ministry burnout — and what Alan is articulating so well for us in TFW (I’m past the introduction now…) is a way to leave the old system(s)…in order to return to the original mission!
I look forward to hearing your story, Frank.
Peggy: Pseudocommunity? Wow, does that ever define it! I like it.
Frank nailed it for most of us I believe. It’s kind of like, we can’t serve both God and mammon. Maybe Jesus was eluding to more than we typically take from that text. The IC in very many ways is tantamount to mammon.
I gave IC one last shot for 2 years, ending last August. We didn’t plan to leave church, but my Dad broke his hip and we needed to take my Mom to the hospital on Sunday morning. While there, my wife led a patient to the Lord, we prayed for his healing, and an hour later he got the use of his hand back after being incapacitated from an accident 3 years before–and it was his birthday to boot! Freeing up Sunday mornings and Tuesday evenings has opened a lot of doors for us missionally.
Now that we no longer serve the institution we have much more time to do things like this, not to mention the missional project we were already trying to develop, but had precious little time to devote to.
I still have faith that a church can turn around, but it would be the exception, not the rule.
My wife did a calendar and shaded in all the days church ’stuff’ was going on with things we are involved in.
Keep in mind this is church stuff that we should be involved in based on what we do at the church, and if we did everything expected of us (and I use the term expected loosely because the staff is very understanding of our time), we would have 3 days…3 DAYS out of the entire month with no church ’stuff’ to do.
No wonder families fall apart, and the church remains un-missional, un-incarnate, and out of touch with her surrounding communities.
I believe most churches want to ‘evangelize’ but unfortunately much more time is spent in meetings on how to evangelize than it is on actual mission. Then evangelism turns into a field trip for an evening, with more debriefing meetings to follow.
The most exciting testimony of the night is that someone actually listened to the presentation of the gospel and said, “Yeah, my Aunt has been praying for me.”
I was talking with a head pastor of a 300 member church and told him an idea a friend of mine had, with doing a philosophy book club in a local pub. The pastor said, “That sounds great, I wish I had time to do that.”
Which is why my wife and I skip most of our ‘meetings’ every month so we have time for each other, and to actually go do what the gospel says.
I know many church leaders don’t have the liberty to play hookey with their meetings, but that’s another reason to maybe look at the church structure and find a new way to re-build it.
where does being contextual come from, and is contextuality a BE or a DO or a both/and thing?
Living Missionally is a “be” I do it because I am it.
The contextualizing comes out of that. Which is the do. Because I am missional how will those qualities manifest themselves.
Qualities of:
Seeking the Lost
caring for the sick, poor
seeking justice
living in mercy
discipling
and many more
All these need a context to do them in.
so its both a be and a do
Jerry,
I like to think of ‘be’ and ‘do’ as the two blades of a propeller. The things I choose to do flow from who I am but the experience of doing these things evolves who I am. As I do stuff I learn more about myself and as I learn more about myself it affects the things I want to do.
Well said, Matt.
Webb, David and Jerry…do you find any comfort/encouragement in knowing that you journey on a path that so many others are traveling?
I feel it is a great blessing from God that Alan hosts/leads the wanderings of all of us…and as we share our stories along the way, our burdens are not necessarily made lighter, because this is a very heavy subject, but our backs are made stronger.
Yes Peggy
Im grateful to expand the journey Ive been on for years and leading locally, with others.
Its a great thing.
You know, Brad, I dropped your subtle questions as I was caught in resonance with Frank’s comment…
“are some of us incarnational but not contextual?” and “is being incarnational sufficient for being contextual - does it automatically make us contextual?”
Sometimes I think that the quick answer is to believe that being incarnational does automatically make us contextual. Doesn’t it seem right that the presence of Jesus Christ in us has an ability to transcend any contextual barrier? Of course, it does!
But the presence of Jesus in us is not “magic.” It does not erase who we are, our experiences, or our blind spots…it transcends and transforms and iluminates them — which involves humility and time and WORK!
It seems that the bad news is that we must continually struggle to be contextually appropriate/relevant. The Holy Spirit is more than able to function as “universal translator”, but we do not mindlessly “channel” the Spirit…we are to embody Christ. And that means the Holy Spirit must work in and through us — the medium (hmm…no pun intended, I mean it!) delivers the message.
And, thinking back to the “cultural distance” thread, it does seem unrealistic or inappropriate to expect that every one of us can be all things to all people in all contexts. We must listen very carefully to what the Spirit is saying to us and asking us to do and move out obediently…but presumptive barging into just any context (haven’t we all seen or done it???) might just lead to an aweful episode of “culture shock”.
Does that make any sense?
Peggy, it’s like walking down the road, thinking you must be crazy, like your only friends are the one or two who believe like you do, and your wife and dog. Then you hear laughing coming from a small cave opening and you crawl inside to find hundreds of others–all who believe the same way you do–and your insanity is vindicated at last!
Yes it’s a great feeling. What is really great is meeting people in your own back yard who are of kindred spirit. I met Jerry through the blogsites, and we’re having church with about a dozen others next Sunday evening at a local steakhouse and pub, where we will map out some missional strategies and tell stories from the front lines, beyond the 4 walls that used to confine us :). How cool is that?
When God started laying these crazy ideas on our hearts about two years ago, we wondered if anyone else on the planet felt the same way.
It started with finding Michael Frost, and now we have friendships (yeah, most of them are virtual, but it beats not having them at all) around the world with like minded people.
And, we are running into a growing number of people in this area that we are building relationship with. It’s all very exciting!
It’s nice to know you’re all out there. It means were onto something, or the insanity is contageous!
“dont emerge before you get missional -
when is the “don’t emerge before you get incarnational” post gonna be written?
i’d like to write on that topic, but actually, i think there’s something even more core to a missional paradigm than being incarnational.
but oh, yikes, dave … it’s nearly 11 PM here. so maybe i’ll get a chance to blog about that mysterious concept tomorrow, on the day after Ash Wednesday, or perhaps thereafter …
Brad, I’d be interested to know what else you think is to be added though.
The story I am sharing is not earth shattering or anything like that. Just a little story to illustrate what I mean. On January 18, 2006 my wife and I took two single moms out for supper. Over supper we decided to go to Peru to work in an orphanage. Over the next year we worked together to raise money for the trip. We met every Monday night for Pizza. As we met and worked and discussed we drew close together. (communitas) The trip came and went. We arrived back in Canada on January 6th 2007. We were there over the Christmas holidays.
When we got back we asked ourselves, “do we want to continue?” We said yes. We will raise money for the orphanage. Two weeks ago we could not meet on The Monday night. So we asked these ladies if Wednesday night was an option. Now these ladies attend to the same small traditional church. They were having a church meeting that night and they wanted a representative from each family. Tara (single mom with two teenage boys) said to us “I have a meeting but I’d much rather have pizza together. Lynette, single mom with 5 children (ages one to 13) suggested we meet for supper anyway. So we did.
Getting close to the time where these ladies had to go, Tara said she wasn’t going to the meeting. Lynette got ready to go. But she has 5 children. My wife and I said we would take care of the dishes and clean up. Tara took her one year old, bathed her and put her p.j’s on. She was free to go to her meeting. My wife and Tara left and I babysat the children. This has been going on for a year. While building communitas we drew close together. The biblical command to “look upon one another’s interests as more important than your own.” becomes more and more a reality. We are helping orphans in Peru to boot. Believe you me traditional church with its potluck suppers, family camps and Sunday morning services is not better than that. I pray someday that all churches will look and feel more like communitas….. enough said.
You know, Frank, I believe that your precious story (I think it is also called The Gospel) has already shown the potential to be earth shattering…and I’ll bet those orphans in Peru would agree. Thanks for sharing your version…(and I think that’s called being incarnational).
Well, now that we have Frank’s story…we’ll be patiently waiting for Brad’s.
David - contagious insanity. hey, if being missional is insanity then I don’t want to be sane right?
Hi Peggy… You asked Webb, David and Jerry if they found “any comfort/encouragement from knowing that they journey on a path that so many are travelling”. At the risk of being a “buttinsky” I would like to say that this web community (and just a couple of others) are incredibly important to me. I would love to be able to carry on these interactions in person… but I guess for now this will have to do.
Too often I feel like Elijah, “I am the only prophet left…”. But, as I read the comments and testimonies coming from each one here, I hear the Lord say to me (as He said to Elijah), “I have yet reserved 7000 in Israel…”.
It’s great to know that I am not alone. I may indeed be nuts… but at least here “the inmates (seem to be) running the asylum”. If so, it’s just because we follow the One who “confounds the wisdom of the wise” by choosing a fool such as I.
the cave of adullam comes to mind. I think I’m going to start calling myself an Adullamite - you think that would be overkill?
I dont want to be sane either
Celtic Son said: Bob, I’m not in agreement with the missional lifeboat image - the either/or is unhelpful. It concerns me that the lifeboat may just be the church building turned on its roof and floating down the river with parishioners perched on pews singing “Onward Christian Soldiers”.
The missional lifeboat image suggests to me that Jesus takes us out of the real world and wraps us in a warm towel, away from all the badness!!What Jesus did was help us to understand that we can walk on water…. or at least we can swim, that we are good swimmers and that we have the capability of helping others, teaching them to swim, then teaching them to teach others to swim. The sad reality of our present situation is that sometimes the sharks will close in, sometimes we will encounter pain - but He’s in the water with us, He has our best interests at heart and it is His blood they smell.
Bob -the planter says, Celtic, You took my lifeboat out of context! But you do have the right to your own image. I preached thousands of sermons that resulted in different images. One time I ripped a far……t! Sorry Alan!
The lifeboat for the church in America is a serious thing. Let’s not argue lifeboats when the Church is sinking. The lifeboat is certainly not a church roof of comfort. She is sinking and she is surrounded by those who are glad she is sinking. Maybe we should all be glad!
Actually in all seriousness, lets just sink the lifeboat and let her sink with those ??? Or maybe we should consider starting a church with the sharks! At least they stay on mission!
Or, consider the image of a church member in a lifeboat. Remember a church member whose butt is in the lifeboat is a butt not in a pew singing Kum By AH! What a perfect image! A Church member in a lifeboat surrounded by sharks, hardly a comfort zone! Sounds like the world to me!
Thanks Celtic for the ear! I’m not really gross! I just love shock value!
Hey Bob…
It’s good to have the opportunity to discuss and clarify… I’m sorry I mistook your illustration - I take it that the far…t was an illustration of the hot air that passes for preaching at times
perhaps I’ve just misrepresented another illustration!
I have concerns about the whole “them and us” thinking of church language - which I recognise is not where you are at (from your posts) but which the image of a lifeboat might be mistaken for… it’s not that I disagree with the points you make (in your inimitable style) simply that image…
Shock value is frequently a necessity in the face of religious spirits - keep up the good work
Slainte
A Celtic Son
First of all, Mark, since I welcomed you into the frey, you are not, by definition, able to be a “buttinsky”. Or, at least, you can join me — as I certainly butted into this group’s conversation mid-stream!
Secondly, if you were to look at some my comments on the various threads of this site you would see that I feel exactly like you do — that this place is incredibly valuable to me; that I wish it could be face to face; and I’m grateful to get what I can get virtually here!
Besides, when Alan welcomed me to this site just three weeks ago, he encouraged me by saying “WE are the fellowship of freaks”! Certainly Elijah would fit into the “freak” category, as would the prophet I seem to most frequently resonate with: Hosea.
I’m not going to even venture a comment as to whether being a freak means to be considered insane…we would probably have to spend hours discussing what insane is
Personally, I prefer freak. Perhaps Bob would even agree with me on that one, since he loves shock value 
“Adullamite” … sounds vaguely geological, if slightly naughty. I like it.
Post on dualism here. Your comments and thoughts welcome, still working through my thoughts on the matter.
I seem to recall M Scott Peck saying in “the Different Drum” something along these lines… we tend to think those who are one stage ahead of us spiritually as saints, and those two stages ahead of us spiritually as insane.
(Can’t seem to find the book to get an exact quote… must have loaned it out to someone!)
Jesus family believed he’d lost the plot and needed to be taken home and put into care, and the Pharisees thought he must be demon-possessed.
I don’t detect any signs of insanity among the correspondents here… just the prophetic ability to hear a different drum that makes them, well, a little odd by the standards of the masses.
Janet, I had this exact thought on the thread about Cultural Distance in my Comment #s 8 & 9 (unfortunate double entry…thought the first was deleted
)
Peck (Chapter IX, Patterns of Transformation) said we generally admire those one step ahead, but tended to think those who were two steps ahead were evil.
It might be time to read that entire book again, from this very fresh perspective, come to think of it! But it must wait until after I finish TFW (almost half way, now)!
Jan, that’s insightful stuff that you bring. Sorry its take me so long to respond.
Chris - slightly naughty I’m very ok about
Janet - I think that was one of the most beautiful and encouraging statements I’ve heard in a long time. Well said.
Patai…
I Googled for something completely different, but found your page…and have to say thanks. nice read….
Arab Mind…
I Googled for something completely different, but found your page…and have to say thanks. nice read….