acting our way into a new way of thinking
As should be obvious by now, we need to develop our ways of knowing God to be able to be true disciples. But it goes beyond just adding right actions and feelings to the equation of right knowledge, I believe the place for us to start is by focusing on the action piece (see posts on action as sacrament.) Here’s the gig: we must move from trying to think our way into a new way of acting, but rather, we need to act our way into new way of thinking.
How have we moved so far from the ethos of discipleship passed on to us by our Lord? And how do we recover it again? It is because western Christendom was so deeply influenced by Greek or Hellenistic ideas of knowledge. By the fourth century AD the Platonic worldview had almost completely triumphed over the Hebraic one in the church. Later on it was Aristotle it became the predominant philosopher for the church. He too operated under a Hellenistic framework. Essentially a Hellenistic view of knowledge is concerned about concepts, ideas, the nature of being, types and forms. The Hebraic on the other hand is primarily concerned with issues of concrete existence, obedience, life oriented wisdom, and interrelationship of all things under God. As Jews, it is quite clear that Jesus and the early church operated primarily out of a Hebraic understanding rather than a Hellenistic one.
The diagram below tries to illustrate this distinction. If our starting point is old thinking and old behavior in a person or church, and we see it as our task to change that situation, taking the Hellenistic approach will mean that we provide information through books, classrooms, to try and get the person/church to a new way of thinking, and hopefully from there to a new way of acting. The problem is that by merely addressing intellectual aspects of the person we have failed to be able to change behavior.
The assumption in Hellenistic thinking is that if people get the right ideas they will simply change their behavior. The Hellenistic approach therefore can be characterized as an attempt to try and think our way into a new way of acting. Both experience and history shows the fallacy of such thinking. And it certainly does not make disciples. All we do is change the way a person thinks; the problem is that his/her behaviors remain largely unaffected. This can be a very frustrating exercise because once a person is in any new paradigm of thinking it is very hard for them to deal the situation from which he/she came from.
Many church leaders experience this on a regular basis: it starts with recognition of some sort of problem in the local church together with a desire to address it. So laboring as they are under a system influenced by Hellenistic views of knowledge, they either go to a conference or to a seminary to access a whole lot of new ideas about church renewal, leadership, and mission. The problem is that this is all they get–new thinking. They still have to deal with an unchanged congregation. And on a deeper look they soon realize that their own behaviors remain unchanged. It is genuinely hard to change one’s behaviors by merely getting new ideas as behaviors are deeply entrenched in us via our ingrained habits, upbringing, cultural norms, as well as erroneous thinking, etc. Even though gaining knowledge is essential to transformation, we soon discover that it’s going to take a whole lot more than new thinking to transform us. Anyone who has struggled with an addiction knows this.
This point has been labored because this type of approach is so deeply entrenched in the western church that we need to see it for what it is before we can find a better way. So what is that better way? You will not be surprised to find out that it is found in the ancient art of disciple making. Disciple making operates best with the Hebrew understanding of knowledge in mind. In other words we need to take a whole person into account in seeking to transform that person. We also need to understand that being whole people we have to educate them in the context of life and for life. The way we do this, indeed way Jesus did it, was to act our way into a new way of thinking. This is clearly how Jesus formed his disciples. They not only lived with him and observed Him in every possible circumstance, they ministered with him, made mistakes and were corrected by him, all in the context of everyday life. And once again these practices are found in all phenomenal movements of God.
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. And this is not as strange as it sounds at first. Human beings are sentient, thinking, creatures with a deep desire to understand our lives and our world. This being so we tend to process things as we go. Ideas and information are important, but they are generally needed to guide action and are best assimilated and understood in the context of life application. The assumption is that we bring all these dynamic thinking processes with us into our actions. It is all about context (not just content). We do not, as is supposed by the Hellenistic model, leave our thinking behind when we are doing our actions. We think while we are acting and act while we our thinking. In actual fact this is precisely the way that all of us learned to walk, talk, socialize, and rationalize in the first place. Why would we assume that our mode of learning should change as we grow older? So what I am proposing looks something like this….
Before we leave this topic let me give you a living example of how some training systems are beginning to reorient themselves to a disciple making ethos in the attempt to form missional leaders. At Forge Mission Training Network we have built the entire system around this concept of action learning discipleship. Our twin aims are to develop missionaries to the west and to develop a distinctly pioneering/missional mode of leadership. To do this we host an internship where the intern is placed in an environment where he/she is somewhat out of their depth. The reason for this is that when a person is placed in the situation that he/she does not have the abilities within their current repertoire of skills and gifts, they will be much more open to real learning. It’s called jumping in the deep end. The vast majority of the intern’s learning is by ‘having a go’ and actually doing things. They meet regularly (at least weekly) with the coach who will debrief them, identify the problems, suggest actions, and refer them to resources, including those of books and conferences. We do hold inspiring learning intensives where we pass on a lot of information but this information is only communicated by those who have demonstrated their own capacity themselves to be able to do exactly what they are teaching—we only allow active missional practitioners to teach. Engaging in training in this way, the intern’s ability to grasp the issues, to resolve and integrate them is significantly increased. Mission is, and always was, the mother of good theology.
Comments
30 Responses to “acting our way into a new way of thinking”
Leave a Reply
The Books
Affiliates
Recent Blog Entries
Recent Comments
-
we are explorers
- Alan Hirsch said: Shades of U2's song "I... shapevine v.2
- Frank Viola said: Looks great, Alan. Lance...
- preacherman said: Wonderful post. I... fundamentalism: a true expression of Christianity or not?
- Janet said: Well, at the risk of...
- Matt Stone said: I think its more than...
- Andrew said: Thanks Matt for that...
- Andrew said: A reason I find US...
- Matt Stone said: Andrew, see http://en...
- Matt Stone said: See http://en.wikipedia...
- Andrew said: Matt, I don't understand...
…Alan…wherever you and your bride are on the planet…thank you for this!!! I tried to email this post to a friend…but nothing happened…any suggestions to the techy neophite?
Wes,
I e-mailed you the link that you can forward to your friend!
Alan,
I was just talking with someone last night about the huge cultural loss it is (not to mention the practical loss) that we no longer value the role of apprentice.
We were talking about the value of criticism…and how very unpopular it is–as well as how poorly most people do it. I commented that this comes, in part, from the fact that we are not used to being the apprentice or the master that can apprentice. We don’t live in a place that recognizes the doing goes right along with the knowing…each increasing the capacity of the other.
I know many have been a bit puzzled by my focus on hesed (I’ve been chatting with Brother Maynard and Len Hjalmarson about it lately) as the essence of Christlikeness. But this post is so helpful in explaining why! Consciousness of the actions of covenant keeping has almost been lost in the New Covenant…but they are just the “actions” that you are talking about in this post.
When you don’t have a dynamic day-to-day connection between Master and Disciple that results in that Know and Do and Hear and Obey and See and Imitate cycle of ACTION as Critical Thinking, you just don’t have the real discipleship deal.
This was absolutely one of my favorite passages from the book and gave me lots of food for thought, specifically with regard to high school students.
I would love to hear you elaborate a little bit on how Forge started and some of the challenges you all faced with keeping it action based.
Hi,
I posted the link to this on the Salvation Army discussion board, as well as telling others. I think this really hits the nail on the head. It is in that zone where you are stretched just beyond what you are comfortable doing for it to be a bit scary, that the learning starts to really happen. This is where the mentoring becomes effective.
It is a totally Jewish approach to act first, and be formed inwardly through the obedience. I vividly remember the first time I stood up to make kiddush at the beginning of Shabbos lunch. I felt a total twat. The visitors were expecting word perfect, having been doing it all their lives. Eek. It felt so artificial and ‘not me’, but within a few months it was as natural as breathing, and the longer you do it, the deeper you go in understanding why and entering into the appreciation of the sanctity of the day (ie if you are Jewish and do that stuff! :0) )
It is just the same with a new believer out living the life of Christ in their community.
I agree that the Western Church has overemphasized the thinking side of the process of disciplemaking, and to our deficit (and perhaps in some ways a deficit to our ability to be witnesses to God’s kingdom).
I would also suggest that for many many of, because of our incredibly deficient (absent?) focus on practices is essential now.
I would simply offer that BOTH pathways can be helpful and are to some degree needed. If we don’t practice, and commit ourselves basically and fundamentally to doing that, our discipleship is merely gnostic. However, if we practice without awareness of the meta-issues that influence our practice, we may be only digging ourselves more deeply into practices that represent the dominant culture that influences us, rather than the truth revealed in and by Jesus Christ.
Peace in Christ,
This is really good! I’m meeting with a few pastors in 2 weeks and this fits in perfectly with where we are at. My pastor has shared that doctrine is simply a teaching, I couldn’t help thinking that if this is true, than isn’t Life
(Christ)the greatest teacher of all.
Penny,
This isn’t surprising, and it stems from the Protestant Project itself some 500 years ago.
Back then, it was critical for Protestants to focus on doctrine AS TEACHING as ways to respond to the need to extricate the teaching of the church from the Roman understanding of Tradition. That mission was accomplished, but it was incomplete relative to the need of the church to form disciples who LIVE the faith.
So, if we can get over the need to fight 500 year old battles on the terms those battles were fought, and get back to a more holistic understanding of the mission of the church (to LIVE as disciples of Jesus Christ sent into God’s mission to the world), an issue that is JUST as doctrinal, in the Pre-Reformation sense, as is “correct beliefs”, we’ll all be in a better place.
Peace in Christ…
Alan,
This was incredibly timely for me this morning, putting clarity to what I’ve been thinking all week. Thanks so much for this…
Grace and Peace to you.
Great stuff Alan…
this really is one of the areas where the rubber hits the road. The western approach to education has destroyed the impetus for authentic learning - instead the one who can remember the most details wins!
Action-Reflection processing has tended to be how I’ve discovered most things that actually have lasting meaning in my life. The connection with the last post - as I see it - is that the precipitative Actions we take have an internal motivation - which means trusting what’s at the core, that which Christ has restored and we don’t yet comprehend, but somehow “know” to be true - rather motivated externally - by analysis of other people’s experience etc.
There was some work done in the corporate sector a number of years ago, I think titled something like the “Knowing - Doing Gap” which was basically the consumer world lamenting this very situation, but without the tools to recognise the solution. Is this an opportunity for Christ followers to begin to lead the world in biblical principles, or will we just wait another 20 years until they’ve “got it” and then apply it to our attractional edifices?
Slainte
A Celtic Son
P.S. I’m not sure of the point of “Hellenist Jesus” peeking through… did you have a spare Christmas card from last year?
Celtic Son,
You asked:
Is this an opportunity for Christ followers to begin to lead the world in biblical principles, or will we just wait another 20 years until they’ve “got it” and then apply it to our attractional edifices?
Well, I don’t think it takes 20 years. Actually, I think it can take a couple of hours– or less.
In my denomination (United Methodist Church) for example, I regularly find leaders in the church who are talking about everyone being in mission and about practices– but still operating out of a basically attractional approach (i.e., thinking of “church” more in terms of the worship service than in terms of the communities on mission). Talking with these folks who are “almost there,” kind of pushing back a bit about the assumption that the goal is to increase attendance (get folks in) with the assertion that if we actually focus on sending people out, we’ve just radically multiplied our efficiency and effectiveness as disciples, seems to make sense to them.
But it takes patience and persistence as well. The old default assumptions die hard– but they do die.
Peace in Christ,
Hi Taylor,
my comment was a little tongue-in-cheek, but nonetheless contained a barb. I do have a genuine concern; the pattern from church history has been for a prophetic element of the church to recognise the church’s irrelevance to the people we are called to engage. But the church is so slow to respond that by the time we develop our new-found relevance, it is already irrelevant. Sadly I see the pattern in much of what embraces the title of “emerging church” and in this post Alan identifies a significant factor. We’ve changed the talk without altering the action.
I believe that the authentic church - the called out people of God, who are genuinely engaging with God and growing into the people that He created them to be (which is what “emerging” ought to truly be about) - has a role to play in leading culture. Instead the model of “cutting edge” ministry, has typically been to develop a poor facsimile of what mainstream culture is doing, 20 years after it has become unfashionable.
In many cases the influence of post-modernity seems to simply have shortened the lag factor, to present the church as less “unfashionable.” Our thinking is “new” but in principle our practices have not actually changed… we talk missional, we practice ministry. Your comment basically highlights the point Alan is making, that when the emphasis is placed on “new ways of thinking” first, nothing actually changes. We think because we have given mental assent to an idea that is change… but it’s not, it’s illusion.
It’s one thing to agree with the missional impulse that is highlighted in The Forgotten Ways and another to DO something missional. I find that I’m in complete agreement with the focus on praxis that Alan describes for the Forge Missions Training Network. What I reckon is required is a bunch of radical pioneers, who “know” they are on a mission with God, let loose to DO and then once they’ve DONE to reflect and learn actual lessons from what they’ve actually achieved or failed to achieve… then get out and DO again and reflect again…
I hope that you are right that “the old default assumptions… do die.” Sadly experience and to some extent theology, has tended to indicate that a generation of old “assumptioners” die, and that the next generation has different assumptions… that are wrong in a different way. I’m not convinced that waiting for the old default assumptions to die is the way forward, I think it’s what the church has always done and it’s one of the things that has got the church into this mess… Jesus didn’t seem to show that much patience with the Pharisees of His era!
I believe the missional impulse is a prophetic provocation to the church that God is saying that it is time for ACTION, but I suspect that call is being corrupted already - in the same way as it has been in every generation - by engaging “missional educators” who are no longer active in mission. Have you ever wondered why Luke didn’t title his second book “The Thoughts of the Apostles!”
Slainte
A Celtic Son
Celtic Son,
I hear the prophetic barb, and I accept it and agree with it.
For me this isn’t about waiting until others catch up to be DOING the right thing. We need to be engaging mission ourselves, directly, and exactly as you describe it, from an action-reflection perspective. That’s what Jesus did with his disciples, after all. He had given them enough of a clue about what the kingdom of God’s arrival meant and what witnessing to that might mean, then sent them out to do that, then talked with them afterwards about what they’d learned. That we have several stories of sending out (70 or 72) says to me that this kind of thing may have happened more than once, or indeed that these “larger” sending stories represent a collation of “smaller” acts of sending. Who knows the history exactly– but it is still clearly paradigmatic.
The Wesleyan movement was FULL of people who clearly understood themselves as being on mission with God, though they didn’t use that language precisely. The General Rules were baptismal covenant lived out– not just avoiding harm, but doing all the good one could, in concrete practices such as (but not limited to) visiting prisoners, feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, making sure the sick are visited and getting the health care they need– none of these as simply policy issues, but as direct personal actions. As I reflect on the 18th century missional context in England, those kinds of actions then would have been precisely missional. And The weekly class meetings were precisely about reflecting on what people had learned from these experiences, as well as encouraging and expecting folks to do more of them.
So for those of us in the Methodist tradition, at least, part of the issue involved is not just doing it again, but also reminding leadership that we in fact know HOW to do this, that THIS is our normative identity, and that there’s no good reason we can’t do it again.
This IS in our DNA– but it’s part of our DNA that has gone recessive. So part of the task I see is not just doing it and encouraging others to do likewise (which I do), but also reminding the leadership structures of the denomination that in fact we DO have the history, and to some degree SOME of the structures (with some significant repurposing) to be able to do it again on a much larger scale. For me this is about bringing the action AND the conversation and structures to a tipping point. I so no good reason not to try to do both.
The problem our church has faced is that we replaced our missional practice of theology (embodied in class meetings and the General Rules) with a theological methodology– the so-called Wesleyan quadrilateral of making DECISIONS about truth on the basis of scripture, tradition, reason and experience. That shift corresponded with a shift from BEING a missional movement in a symbiotic relationship with an institutional church to BEING an institutional church ourselves– and then having that IC identity sort of sap the life out of the missional impulses and structures we had had in place. We moved from being symbiotic (both-and) to being glommed (IC essentially parasitic on the missional movement until it had “assimilated” that movement for its own ends, Borg-style).
There are real obstacles to a recovery of our basic missional identity as an identity knowable through praxis, a label placed on us by others because they can’t help but describe us that way. It’s certainly not enough for us to apply the label to ourselves. But, at least where I’m positioned (I’m inside the bureaucracy of the denomination), working to shift the conversation seems both valuable and possible.
God’s kingdom is happening EVEN in the midst of denominational structures. I see part of my role as being a witness to that in this venue, to work in the yeast, to till enough ground that the mustard weed can spread, to help make not just the conversation, but especially the action at this level much more aligned with supporting (rather than controlling or obstructing) the mission of God.
Peace in Christ,
Taylor Burton-Edwards
Conversations are incredibly important in this age o the net, for networking and energising, but the difficulty I have is that I can only find other people to explore this with who are locked into ministry in established church, and who are powerless to change what they spend their time doing. They can sympathise but not mentor or encourage. So when I change what I do, Im out on a limb with no group with whom to dialogue. Have just been on msn to a sem student, and she has not come across a single example of a church in her denomination which is doing anything out of the established church pattern - where do you go from there? She thinks most of her students are influenced more by postmodernity than modernity, but the church ordaining them is collectively totally in modernity structure and mindset. The relational/mentoring/discipling concept simply isn’t there.
Emily,
If indeed there is no way to do this in a particular denomination, then by all means find another one, or find some partners/networks to support you doing it in the one you’re in, or partners/networks of folks who are doing this outside denominations entirely– though what you’ll find if you do that is that there are things denominations provide that you’re going to need, so it’s better to have that kind of support up front so you don’t have to create or sustain it yourself.
I’m not sure which denomination you’re describing. What I do know is that there are networks and leadership who support emerging missional work and/or church planting in a growing number of existing denominations.
Peace in Christ,
Taylor Burton-Edwards
Director of Worship Resources
Taylor,
I think we’re in agreement on the primary issue of motivating people towards action, the question simply is whether more talk first is going to get us there - which is what I see happening mostly - or it is time now for taking precipitative action - which is what I see is the challenge of Alan’s post. The way I read Biblical context acceptance and agreement are recognised by changed behaviour, not just nodding heads… the action there is fruit from changed thinking, if there is no fruit then is the thinking actually changed?
I’m not suggesting that shifting the conversation is not important, simply that on it’s own it does not bring change. It is a place to start, but how long do you stay in a starting place before moving into action - how long does the race car rev its engine before taking off… if it’s sitting there revving, long after the lights have changed it’s not going to complete the race much less win!
In your denominational role what actions could you take to start operating in the changed values that you accept and agree with. What if it costs you your job? What’s more important? I raise that challenge having personally gone down this track.
Eleanor,
I found myself in just such a situation. I was a staff member of a large attractional church, in what was the fastest growing denomination in our nation. In my heart I knew there was a call to mission with God rather than building attractional church - although 10 years ago I could not have articulated it quite as clearly. I prayed and discussed it with my wife - we were expecting our first child - and consequently resigned, with no clear direction of what was next. It took a few months to find regular employment again elsewhere and to be in a position to support my family again.
A couple of years later we began a small community with two other families. We have gathered and grown and prayed and developed relationships and opportunities of service in our broader local community. As we developed as a missional, community-focussed church we connected with our original denomination - it is an awkward relationship at times because our values clash, but I believe in time I will have opportunity to bring missional influence to bear.
These days - seven and a half years later - we are involved in lots of activities in our community. We run playgroups in a local public school in partnership with the school; we rent space and run coffee mornings and craft groups for senior people in our community; we buy values based children’s books and donate them to our local schools; we spent this weekend supporting a local community fair; we have people who are voluntary members of local community services… etc etc.
We also run midweek “LIFEgroups” where believers gather to reflect on what’s going on in there lives and to encourage, we run a “LIFEschool” teaching theology and practical application courses and we run a Sunday service - with a fantastic morning tea afterwards which runs for longer than the worship service.
Because missional values are not a priority of our denomination, I invited a small group of missionally minded church leaders that I had met from a variety of denominations to gather. There are six of us, from four denominations at present, and one of the leaders is directly involved in Forge training, so we utilise that link too. We have become an intentional network - not a denomination - and will extend that to others who are missionally minded.
I’d agree with Taylor that you need to seek out other networks that can support you in your missional focus. If you can’t find one perhaps you can start one… or recruit someone who can…
Slainte
A Celtic Son
Hmm. We have a few people who are accepted as pioneers doing something unconventional, but they are not around here or in the same networks of dialogue I’m in - I have tried. I am on a tightrope here, right on the margins of a denomination as a lay member, Sister technically under private vows, and just working as I see fit. I think one of the things I’ve had to come to terms with is that I won’t be in the ‘loop’ for denominational funding, encouragement or whatever. It isn’t going to happen. Very difficult, but I work warmly alongside established congregations, and most of what I do is ecumenically focussed, so it sort of works out. The growth in the church though surely happens at grassroots level and in the margins.
I was struck by the comparison between the ‘new’ concept of missional disciplemaking in small groups and early Methodism. Here we have a few local methodist ministers fairly desperate to recover the original vision! But it is easier to go forward than backwards, and presenting it as a re-invented concept might go down better than talking about ‘back to our roots’. The main difficulties usually round here are still that the most gifted and able leaders are fully occupied doing established church stuff, and the congregation want to remain cuddle club churches rather than missionally outward looking.
Going back to the original heading, acting our way into a new way of thinking, I realise that it is relatively simple to just form such a group and live the process of discipling. I am still not sure, though, how to nurture a high support, high challenge team environment without raising the religious temperature so high it becomes unsustainable. One thing I learned living in community was that people need a managable religious temperature, alongside a clear focus on living their faith. People can’t usually run for long at a high religious temperature and it creates instability in the group. How do we juggle these needs for challenge and stability?
Celtic Son and Eleanor:
Two words– both-and.
If people like me whose missional field is the bureaucracy of the institutional church can work to change the way the leadership of the denomination think and act– helping us shift from attractional to missional models– that can only help the missional cause, which, from my angle means active Christian discipleship and mission.
That doesn’t mean I think we need to wait until the institution gets it right before going out and doing it– and learning by doing. On the contrary, even if the institution opposes that, that’s still a vital thing to do.
Both-and– work on the institution from the inside (which is what I do primarily) AND work on the missional work itself everywhere (which is more of what you are doing). I encourage that all the time. If people like me do our thing well, we might be able to influence the institution to make it much easier for people like you to do yours, with fewer distractions.
Both-and as well for the issue of knowing– by doing AND by thinking. The value of the thinking part isn’t to control the doing, or to be an end in itself, but rather to ask the right questions about the doing so the doing isn’t as likely to be captured by unexamined cultural assumptions or self-justifications.
And Eleanor, the balance you seek (challenge and stability) is also a both-and piece I think.
I’m Methodist, so I speak from that context– not to say that we now have or ever did have it all exactly right or that others didn’t or don’t do it better!
Early Methodism (for its first 50 years or so) lived that kind of both-andedness this way– the “religiously hot” elements were in the missional structures of class meetings, societies, districts and conference (today we might say small groups, hubs and networks). But one of the rules of these small groups was that they stay connected to the institutional church (whichever one that may have been– you didn’t have to be Anglican to be Methodist) for worship (especially for the Lord’s Supper, as often as possible) and for authoritative teaching. The result was that both the missional structures AND the ecclesial structures benefited from the relationship, even when it was tense (and it often was!)
That’s why I suggested finding a network or a denomination to connect with, even if it’s not ideal right now. Doing so will let YOU focus on what YOU need to do missionally, while “offloading” more “stability” tasks to others who are very good at them.
Peace in Christ,
Taylor Burton-Edwards
Wow…friends, I am so sorry to have been under the weather and missed most of this…hoping to get to truly process your comments…
Hi Taylor and Celtic Son, thank you so much for your rich and encouraging replies. I think I am doing as you suggest, and share that discernment. I’m maintaining a somewhat tenuous link to my denomination, and go in now and again, and donate etc, and pray for them and with them when the opportunity arises. But I protect myself and my family as well. I’ve set up Cornwall Church Health and the first thing I did was initiate a forum for local lay people and clergy to meet to reflect on new forms of church and give each other encouragement. It has immediately created a network of likeminded people and generated hope and energy, and an innovative team is forming to make up Cornwall Church Health. It is happening slowly, but surely. The Lifegroups and Lifeschool models strike me as hitting the spot, and I think we have potential to do this. I’ve already run something very close to Lifegroups with young people here, ending only because of my son’s ongoing illness. If I can now regroup, Lifegroup may be able to resume!
Networking, encouraging, practice and reflection are the heart of it, and the action leading to a new way of thinking sums it up. Warmest blessings,
Celtic Son, I would love to hear in more detail about LIFESchool in particular. I realise you must be very busy, but if you have time to respond, it would be good to hear either on list or via eleanorburnejones at msn.com :0)
Warmest blessings
Wow Celtic, “I Think I Love You!” actually have got that Partridge Family song stuck in my head. I enjoyed your testimony and the courage it took for you to follow Christ.
I asked to be released from membership this last summer. Right now I am trying to lay a foundation for a missional community with my neighbors and at work with my co-workers. Sundays I still worship in my former church with my husband who is still a member. The people there are my friends who I have shared life with. I need them but I also believe our church has it’s identity in the church and not in Christ.
One of the things I love about Alan’s concept on disciple making is that it also helps in building a persons confidence in Christ, not His Church.
I must watch my tongue though. I totally lost it with my pastor this morning. He had a wonderful lesson on how we can not work for our salvation using the book of Job. That in the ancient culture people did things to appease the God’s and our Lord does not work like that. Than he finishes off this wonderful lesson by saying,”We come to church every week because it is the most prominent place we see God.” Totally corked my butt. I asked him, “If church is the most prominent place we see God, does this mean I only get to see him for 1hour a week? Or no maybe I should seclude myself in the church on endless board meetings while my neighbor or family goes hungry and thirsty.” He proceeded to tell me “We also go to church for forgiveness of sins.” Seems to me that is pretty arrogant to think the church can forgive sins! Sorry for ranting but that just totally blew my mind. Of course I also know my pastor speaks in tongues so sometimes I think we are saying the same thing it’s just so “churchy!”
Eleanor,
I think your right about the grass roots level. My mother has been a christian for about 3 years. She’s in a small group that meets weekly in her trailer park. For many reasons partly due to health she does worship but not in a local organized church. My mother and I had more of a disciple/mentoring relationship before we could even begin a mother/daughter relationship. It is really cool. This summer she let one of my employees stay with her for a few days. She had never met him before and only knew that the guy was an ex-gang banger. She opened her home and her heart. I don’t know anyone in my church that would do that. However, by sharing her testimony in her small group with people in our church she is in a sense discipling and changing hearts at the grass roots level.
Penney,
If worship is the most prominent place we can see God, well, then I guess we’re pretty blind, eh? Seriously, your little blow up sounds perfectly reasonable to me– sounds like you will need to work on damage control with your pastor a bit, maybe find a way to talk about why a 1 hr/week center for our life is more than a little problematic, if not just inefficient from a missional perspective.
Sorry to harp on Wesley so much here– I just think he had some things to say about this. He did NOT think worship was a place to get our sins forgiven, at least not primarily (though that would happen there, too). He thought that was a function of small groups he called bands (sort of the level beyond the class meeting, primarily for group leaders)– where people could confess their sins to each other that they may be healed. In the class meetings proper, sins specifically concerning not living into the General Rules would be dealt with and handled as well– just not in as intense a level as in the bands.
What this meant, then was that Sunday worship (Eucharist at the C of E or wherever) was NOT there to get sins forgiven, but rather to encounter Christ in scripture and at the Table, to celebrate what God was doing in their lives, to offer prayer for the world with many other Christians, and to be sent back out into mission.
Peace in Christ,
Taylor Burton-Edwards
I’ve still been processing Alan’s “monty” post a bit longer, and I wonder whether it might relate some to what we’re talking about here:
http://abisomeone.blogspot.com/2007/11/i-think-we-could-use-wee-bit-of.html
The question I want to ask here is whether it is helpful to think of “right perception” for orthopathy, rather than passion, emotions or feelings. It seems to me that perception includes the acknowledgment of the actual passion, emotions and feelings as well as a sense of perspective about them.
Whatever else folks might say about Bishop Berkeley, I continue to be convinced that he was on to something with his belief that “to be is to be perceived…with God as the ultimate perceiver.” We exist because we exist to God…and so it would seem that right perception is critical in aligning ourselves with God…but it would also be a bit of a bridge between the thinking and acting.
Proper perception that comes out of observation and reflection certainly leads to action that informs learning and thinking…doesn’t it? (If you can follow along with that string….)
Just wondering….
I’m interested in your comments Taylor… I work for Churches of Christ Vic/Tas and we’re also having a dialogue about rediscovery of the core DNA of the movement… a movement which has morphed over time into something that looks like and acts like a denomination, rather than a movement focused on mission and radical ecumenism (to give it a modern name).
We do need most importantly to activate the DNA of the first Jesus movement… but I also think we carry the DNA of later generations around within us, and these “forgotten ways” too can be called up / activated. They may in fact be easier to activate because they haven’t been dormant for too long…
It’s fascinating to note there seems to be a generation emerging that is impatient with “church” but interested in the mission of Jesus.
I am a pastor within the Church of Christ as well, only out in the Northeast U.S. To help move actions to the forefront, we have created a sub-group (called Orchard Group) that plants churches and networks/supports those that were planted. I believe it has helped. More than sharing information, pastors within this network contact each other to learn from what the other is doing.
On smaller scales, I have been struggling to apply action orientation to my pastoral role as a small group coach. Similar to Alan’s objectives with Forge, I hope to train my small group leaders via weighty responsibilities accompanied with support from coaches and teaching by practitioners. I’d like to hear how others of you are developing leaders.
Hullo-o-o
Another sparkling thread… Al Hirsch is a great conversation starter, well worth an invitation to dinner I reckon! I appreciate many of the lines of thoughts here… though I’m not sure how much to see comparison to the Partridge family as a compliment
I don’t reckon I’m nearly as courageous as some of the fantastic unheard of, unknown this side of eternity, sold-out missionaries that serve Christ globally. I do however appreciate your encouragement Penney. Self-control is a challenge to everyone who has a passion for anything… the bottom line for me is not how much knowledge I have of God, but how much control the Spirit has of me…
Considering the holistic nature of the Biblical concept of “knowledge,” as it is related to intimacy - true knowledge involves body, soul and spirit. There is emotional connection, intimacy of heart, focus of thought, physical activity and the possibility of fruitfulness… ALL contribute to authentic satisfaction. This embraces the “both-and” yet it is so much more than that, the “both-and” is the fruit of holistic health and well-being…
Taylor,
I’m not sure I’ve made my point clear; at the risk of pushing boundaries (or buttons!) in what Biblical context is “the bureaucracy of the institutional church” a legitimate mission field – Jesus seems more likely to presume that the religious hierarchy should know better and judge them for their lack of action! Essentially, what I’m asking is, what missional praxis are you involved in that is the “both-and” for you, in your denominational role? I’m not anti-denomination, I’m part of one, and I expect those who believe they are called to lead, ought to do so by example - just applying influence to change conversation doesn’t seem to be “both-and” to me.
Eleanor,
I will email you as soon as I’m able - there are some local needs that limit my capacity to contribute right now.
Slainte
A Celtic Son
thanks for the article but I dont see that in the bible. In all of Paul’s letters to the various churches he almost always challenges their thinking first and then he goes into the actions. Your actions reveal what your think. The disciples never changed until they experinced the resurrection and received the holy spirit.
Old testament theology is about mastering sin but Pauline theology is that our sinful state can not please God. Only by the power and message of Christ can we be transformed to likeness of Christ. It is impossible for to chnage our state by others but only possible with God and having a relationship with him.
I’ve been pondering this entry for a month now and have droped some of my musings it in my blog: http://root48.wordpress.com/2008/01/05/120/
The mini version is: Switching over to Hebrew approaches would really mess up the organizational structures of our churches and universities - smaller mentor based systems would probably take the place of the larger lecture base we now operate under. It’s worth a shot!