1.@ clay: what is church for? I think a clearer way of shaping this is to consider church as a verb- those Spirit filled moments (synchronicities, to borrow Jung) when Word and Sacrament are ordered to join and anticipate God’s purposes in creation. This is more incarnational and avoids the platonic urge to pre-design an air-tight formula.

2.@ clay: can deep shifts happen in a 1/3 of the congregation? I can;t think of a time when transformation does not originate in “practices” or “postures” that catch on. In other words, a few folks begin to “do” and “act” differently and their minds are then transformed. Until a few more join them. And then a few more. So why not start with this third and invite them to include those from the other 2/3rds to reflect with them on what is happening. The “traditional” services do not need to change their style to join this more participatory way. An imaginative Traditional Worship Leader like Tony describes is a great way for this to start.

3.@ david: what is contemporary? David, most american church goers who consume pre-fabricated worship formats see contemporary as a closed genre. It is the byproduct of CCM’s successful branding in the 80s and 90s. Try introducing the word “contemporaneous” (remember this from Greek tenses- I believe it was Aorist) and asking how does the worship style or material we use in worship come from the actual everyday world around us (you can grab You-Tube videos, newspaper clippings, popular music, folks music, movie quotes, and styles/chord progressions). We can learn from the Word of God whom/which we follow into the world (C-67) as much as from a Word of God remembered.

4.@ steve: Interesting to pair up “force feeding” and “calling.” CCM and denominational(or ecumenical) top down curriculum has created a consumptive Christian way. How do we reverse this tendency and equip worshipppers to produce, to make their own testimony? Borrowing some of Tom Wright’s pneumatology, the community is sent gifts from the Spirit almost like the Israelite sampled fruit from the promised land brought by the spies. As such, the fruits of enthronement, adoration, and lamentation are gifts from the promised eschaton for worshipers to taste and enjoy. So worship is born out of calling and not out of a top down “force feeding.”

5.@ tony: You wrote, “gatherings exist for the sake of the world.” I love it! Spot on. Somehow blending our “target audience” to include God with us, the body of Christ in which we are united, and the Christ of the Emmaus way- these are how worship looks beyond our congregations. A friend of mine says it this way: the church is not the end user of the gospel. I agree, and neither are we the end users of worship.

6. @ tony: to paraphrase you said, “our worship and everything else would be better if it were subservient to the Word.” I have found folks use this to marginalize order/art/testimony to only “illustration of the preacher’s sermon or the platonic idea presented by the Bible.” I would suggest that the Word is hidden and being revealed, and that the risk of missing is unavoidable… The Word is hidden in our past (such as Jesus’ exposition of the collective memory of the Emmaus road disciples) AND the word is also being revealed ahead of us (such as the angel instructing shepherds to go and see these things, and the voice telling peter to get up and go meet…). As such worship is discovery and not “explanation” or “illustration.” We meet God as we sing and pray. Our bodies are put into play as we kneel and raise hands and kiss one another and wash feet and ‘pray double’ through song. And as such, worship that serves the Word is less of a coersive predetermined posture and more of an open receptive posture. I might be splitting hairs here, but my purpose is to suggest that we cannot avoid the risks of stylizing or crafting or “ordering” our acts of worship by being more “Word” centered. Instead worship is to enter into that risk. Perhaps we can, however, make space for the hidden Word to be revealed in our sacramental habits. And, then, to make space for faithful-yet-risky responses of conversion.

Saturday: Secular Sabbath or Christian Cop-out?

Wow. Mark Bittman’s article in Sunday’s NY Times, “I need a virtual break. No Really.” is a fascinating argument for “secular sabbath” in our technology age. Add that to Weekend Edition’s latest This I Believe essay on “Leaving Work to Watch the Sunset” by Laurie Granieri and you have a rather compelling case against America’s workaholism (and who says I’m out of the US media market).

I’ll mostly stick to Bittman’s Times piece for this post, but do check out Granieri. Bittman writes of his struggles to give up technology for one day a week. He used to be a tech-addict, checking his email last thing before bed and first thing after waking, until he made a pledge not to use any gizmos on Saturday. That means no computers, no email, no ipod, and no cell phone. And you know what? He survived!

Not only that, Bittman now flourishes on Saturday. Though he continues to struggle with the practicalities, Bittman concludes:

I would no more make a new-agey call to find inner peace than I would encourage a return to the mimeograph. But I do believe that there has to be a way to regularly impose some thoughtfulness, or at least calm, into modern life - or at least my version. Once I moved beyond the fear of being unavailable and what it might cost me, I experienced what, if I wasn’t such a skeptic, I would call a lightness of being. I felt connected to myself rather than my computer. I had time to think, and distance from normal demands. I got to stop.

Bittman’s secular sabbath journey should perk the ears of Christians. Not only are we as inundated with technology as everyone else, we’re commanded to take sabbath. Oh, and it’s not one of those Bible verses that’s real easy to reinterpret and read past–it’s a freaking commandment! Do not steal. Do not kill. Keep the sabbath.

The best and most challenging book I’ve read on sabbath is Marva Dawn’s “Keeping the Sabbath Wholly: Ceasing, Resting, Embracing, Feasting.” In it, Dawn argues for a pretty strong sabbath keeping. She explains that at sundown each Saturday night, she lights a candle and prays to mark the beginning of the sabbath. She then, with a quite strict definition, does not work until (I think) sundown Sunday night (or it might be Monday, let me know if you’ve read it). Dawn often has sabbath dinner parties because they’re not work but rejoicing in the relationships God encourages. She studies the Bible and prays. On the sabbath Dawn does not check email–heck, she doesn’t even read the paper. Dawn writes that to make her transition to sabbath keeping, in early days when she thought of something about work, she would write it down and slide it under her locked study door so it would not bother her until the next day. Now, though, she’s progressed and rarely needs to do so.

What I find fascinating, however, is the relative quiet in the mainline church about sabbath keeping. Theology of sabbath may be more spoken of today compared to twenty years ago, but in many ways it’s still taboo in mainline denominations. We’re living in a world where a NY Times article on secular sabbath makes the most-emailed list in hours, and mainline Western Christianity fails to encourage the keeping of a commandment.

All this said, I don’t think making prescriptions for no email one day a week is necessarily the answer. I don’t think turning off a cell phone for a day will solve much of anything. I don’t think reading the newspaper in paper form rather than online is going to make a big difference in my life. I differ with Bittman’s complete no-tech day not out of principle but out of practice.

I try–hard–to take a full day off from work, a sabbath each week. Often this will mean I stay up Friday night writing Sunday’s prayers so I don’t have to look at them on Saturday. But come Saturday morning, I’m online bright and early–ok, maybe not early–to check email, play scrabulous, read the paper, blog. For me, the distinction is in between work and play. Writing prayers for corporate worship is work. Emailing friends, chatting on the phone, scrabulousing, is play. Play connects me to people, is personally fun, and is part of a larger giving glory to God and enjoying God forever. And as long as these online connections don’t negatively affect my in-person relationships, I think I’m doing alright. Sure, I’d read more novels if I didn’t read blogs on Saturdays, but I think reading blogs is a healthy leisure activity and I can barely afford the novels I read as it is.

So at the end of the day, Bittman may be on to something, but his complete sabbath from technology seems a bit extreme. I might just be rationalizing, or fooling myself, or plain wrong, but at least I can blog about it.

I will be the first person to admit that even our lowest standard of living is higher than many countries average daily income levels. We are not the worst. We are also sitting atop a volatile mountain of debt, spending, and imaginary power cells. What the fuck are we living for? Where is the service to Christ? Where is the transformation? We are dying as a church in the west and people say they care but they are not supporting it.

I wrote this in response to Carol’s post. I am not a pastor, but a seminarian on the verge of graduation. I am terrified to go into ministry. All of the fears you spoke of add to my anxiety. What shall I do to ensure I can afford to raise a family or even serve a congregation? I heard far too much, “trust God! It is a matter of faith.” I agree trusting God is the beginning. Where is the practice of trust when it comes to financial support from the congregations? Folks will complain, but they will not support.

We are all to blame in the decline. We are part of the problem. This stance of “trust God and if you do not then you have no faith” removes the responsibility from congregations, the Body, and all have in supporting the church. We do not train pastors for free. Is it fair and good stewardship to expect these individuals to shoulder the cost of training that is required?

We have to pay 80 dollars per ordination exam — that is 400 dollars if you can pass these antiquated monsters in the first shot. Not many do! Then there are the psychological evaluations, anywhere from 600 to 2500 dollars. Then the cost of seminary itself, from 10,000 to 15,000 per year for tuition and an additional 10,000 or so to live each year. That is about 60,000 to 75,000 in debt to begin your service with. We need to be smarter with this. If we say we are concerned with the death of the church then we need to step up and support.

The day of the full time pastor maybe behind us. I for one think it is. We must seek sustainable ways to minister in the context to which we find ourselves. Does this mean we have to do away with seminaries and the education they provide? No, the seminary education is foundational to service in the reformed tradition. We must change our lives to live responsibly and centered on Christ.

I used to joke that I wanted to open the First Presbyterian Church of Holy Rollers Bowling Alley. I am no longer joking. Is a coffee house, pub, bowling alley, or restaurant the answer? It is sustainable and attracts folks. In some areas it would respond to the desire and need of a distanced population. It would provide a place for community, care, warmth, outreach, and financial resistance. We just need folks to grasp the idea. Like one of my favorite groups would said, “Rage full on!”

In conjunction with a new way we can inventory our stuff and ask: Do we need the ipod? The newest phone? The cable TV? The two cars? The this or the that? All of this stuff is nice. What does it say about what you live your life for and for whom you live for? I am a f’king hypocrite right along with many of us. I crave the technologies! The Apple computers. The name brand running shoes, the jeans, the shirts, the designer vitamins and food. I love to eat out and am overweight and a burden to this world. I do not practice all that I preach. I need grace, forgiveness, and courage to be what I have witnessed in this world. To stand against the tyranny of consumerism and stereotypes, and hopelessness.

There is a better way. Please pray about it and pray that we can find the way to the cross and sit at the feet of Jesus. The rebel rousing Jesus that roundhouse kicks the money lenders out of a house of Prayer. WTFWJD?

There has been much ado about postmodernism these days. There is postmodern architecture, postmodern philosophy, postmodern art, postmodern film, postmodern literature, postmodern music, postmodern theater, postmodern theology, and even postmodern postmodernism. You cannot escape conversation in many circles without postmodernism entering into it and mocking your modern intellectual vision.

The effects upon the cultural landscape moves today into tension with tomorrow. It begs us to ask the questions of where, when, why, and how of the very human fabric that weaves history, time, and space into a society or does it?

No matter how you interpret postmodernism you must contend that it is a reaction to the status quo. It is rooted in an outsider perspective that mounts attitudes of “us verses them” upon a position of entitlement.

What is Postmodern Theology?
Postmodern Christian theology is a theology rooted in reaction to the status quo. It should be counter-cultural in nature. It seeks to disturb and transform those engaged in the practice of theology. It looks to the pervading culture for means to express and illuminate the gospel message of Jesus Christ. It must not be comfortable or commodified. Theology that seeks to transform cannot and should not be consumed like fun size Halloween candy. To partake in the radical transforming nature of the gospel direct opposition to the status quo is called for.

Gone is the ability to stoically sit by as the gospel is used to propagate a conquering message that excludes and builds division. We are far to concerned with difference rather than similarities.

All are called to ministry. All are sought after to serve. In the Presbyterian tradition being a Minister of the Word and Sacrament does not entitle you to anything more than service. There is no difference between congregation and pastor. We are a body of Believers! Some of us have lost our salt. We are SALboosT as a denomination already.

Where must we go from here?

My outcome in this process
In the course of researching the topic of Postmodern understanding of call I conducted many interviews. I came across a few conclusions:

1. Call is relative to one’s culture.
2. Postmodern understanding of call is rooted in vocational understanding and a longing for security.
3. Action is called for today. we must seek to engage the culture around us to become effective instruments of witness.

There is need for ministers, pastors, and preachers. There is also a need for the understanding of these roles to sift and become more flexible. Churches would benefit from becoming uncomfortable and challenge he status quo. What are you protecting and from what are you protecting it from? In a world full of adjectives, may we be a people of verbs.

I have just hit the up swing from my bout with the pneumonia, which coincided with the first week of classes. Am still rather tired and now much more overwhelmed than normal. This must be accounted for as I write this. But alas I am tired. I read many books on post modern religious application and seek to be a light or perhaps a better term a lightning rod for change in the denomination.

We are doing good things(?). I just wonder where the transformation is. Where is the radical love present in the gospel. I hear all the time the need for something new. Yet folks are fearful of putting themselves out there as transparent, vessels of God’s undying love. We have to answer the call to love, the call to justice, and the call to radical transformation from the bondage of the status quo!

As I near graduation and the possible venture into ministry I am growing convicted of the need to challenge the system and F’ stuff up. The church is so afraid of dying IT WILL DIE! Is this not what we are called to do? Are we not to die unto Christ?

Then as a reformed church where is transformation visable in our denomination? I am frustrated by the power struggle for property and material goods. I wish we would be so passionate and hungry to serve the poor and marginalized as we are in keeping “truth” and order in the proper hands.

It is my understanding that the emerging ethos demands that we address the world via a relevant cultural lens that highlights the love of God. To radically endeavor to be followers of Christ in ways that embrace culture not isolate and hoginize it. If fear is in the equation than walking any walk will lead us to another stalemate with the status quo. We must challenge the status quo. I struggle with balencing transformation and grace.

This is when I resort to my favorite Acronym, WTFWJD?

The expletive f@%k is the only adjective I can think of that is close to my frustration when I think about our failure to do and our zeal to do not. How can w earnestly move to wards reconciliation with a desperate longing fit for an outsider. Cause folks we are outsiders looking into righteousness.

That said, although ESR (as he is generally referred to in hacker culture) cautions against the expansion of the open source label to other fields (ie music, books, politics, etc), I was amazed in reading this book just how much potential application there is for the world of theology. Actually, I think the open source movement paralells the Emergent movement in many ways. Here are a few of my favorite observations from the book:

• How to Be a Hacker. First of all, ESR differentiates between the media’s great misunderstanding of a hacker as a punk teenager who “creates problems and destroys things,” and the original understanding of a hacker as a computer programmer who “solves problems and builds things.” To “hack” code is not to break it, but to add something to it that makes it more valuable for one’s self and for the community. Sharing, obviously, is a big part of hacker culture. In response to the question, “How do I become a hacker,” ESR says that “You aren’t a hacker until people in the hacker culture call you a hacker” on the basis of your contribution to the community.

Yeah. There’s an old song — “They will know we are Christians by our love, by our love, yes they will know that we are Christians by our love.” How awesome would it be if, rather than slapping a chrome fish on the bumper of our SUV and then driving like a**holes (can I say that here?), we simply refused to call ourselves Christians until others recognized the Christ in us?

• The Cathedral and the Bazaar Metaphor. ESR compares proprietary software and programming to a cathedral — development and release of the “product” are tightly controlled by small, exclusive group of people, shrouded in secrecy and authoritariansim. The result is large, costly, and frozen in time. Contrasting this is the bazaar right outside, which ESR compares to open source software — open, ever-changing, where anyone can produce and/or consume a diversity of products.

The theological implications here are pretty obvious, especially since it’s already a “churchy” sort of image. In his book The Emerging Church, Dan Kimball actually points out the fact that most European cathedrals are largely empty on Sunday mornings, a relic of another time. Most local marketplaces (my favorite = coffee shop), on the other hand, thrive, and often provide more service to the community than just the products they sell. Note I said “local.” IMHO, Wal-Mart is more of a cathedral than a bazaar.

• Sale Value vs. Use Value. Since most open-source software is free (as in “no cost,” although it’s always, by definition, free as in “liberty” or “speech”), some people fear that its rise would have damaging economic effects on the software industry. ESR points out that the current industry over-emphasizes “sale value” (immediate exchange of good for cash up front) over “use value” (think support & service) to the detriment of the consumer. If the biggest profit comes from the up front sale, companies have more incentive to provide a nice slick “box” and a marketing campaign than they do to provide something that actually works or has any sort of longevity. If the product is free, companies are forced to compete to provide the best support and service to make their profit. The book was written in the late 90’s, and already this idea is becoming industry standard, even in companies like Micro$oft.

From a theological standpoint, this one really jumped out at me: Often in Evangelical Christianity of the past two decades (and ocasionally in our beloved Presbyterian ones, too) we find a *huge* emphasis placed on “salvation” and “alter calls,” (sale value) while we have largely ignore things like ongoing spiritual education and practice (use value). It seems we have taken the position that the most important question one can be asked is “Are you saved?” rather than “How do you live your life?” And, like the software industry, the church is often guilty of slick marketing campaigns and “packaging” of our product at the expense of the real stuff Jesus did, like caring for the sick, the poor, and the oppressed. Come to think of it, Jesus was pretty big on “service and support.” (Matt. 20:25-28)

Finally, I was encouraged to read this in the final chapter:

The hacker mind-set is not confined to this software-hacker culture. There are people who apply the hacker attitude to other things, like electronics or music — actually, you can find it at the highest levels of any science or art. Software hackers recognize these kindred spirits elsewhere and may call them “hackers” too — and some claim that the hacker nature is really independent of the particular medium the hacker works in.

So, I think I want to be a hacker when I grow up. An open-source software hacker, yes. But also a music hacker. A literature hacker. An education hacker. And a Presbymergent theological hacker. Book of Order, look out…

In the interest of starting the conversation as suggested by Neal, I’ll throw in my two cents worth about what I’ve read so far in “An Emergent Manifesto of Hope.” Honestly, I was under-whelmed by Part 1 (People of Hope.) However, I have found Part 2 (Communities of Hope) to be a much more helpful and profitable read.

I want to focus my comments on the chapter “An Ever-Renewed Adventure of Faith,” because it gives me some wonderful vocabulary to assist me in my struggle to expand my thinking of salvation offered in Christ beyond the individual.

My favorite line so far in this book is “the individual soul is too small a target for God’s love and justice.” Think about that for a moment…if I limit salvation to just “me and Jesus” then I’m claiming that I am the most important thing in this world. More importantly, I’m belittling God and the work that God wants to do in this world.

The other day while listening to a CCM station, which we don’t do that often, my wife and I heard a song based on Micah 6:8. Interestingly, the translation the song offered was “but to act justly” rather than “but to do justice.” We both thought how ever so slightly the song changes the focus of that verse away from promoting the cause of justice in the world to focusing on personal piety. Here is a prime example of how easy it is to belittle God and minimize the scope of God’s concern.

This chapter challenges me to seriously reflect on the ways I have chosen to live in this world: the type of house and neighborhood I live in, the cars I drive, and the causes I support (or fail to support.) More than what I say, the choices I make about how I live speak volumes to others about about how large or how small I think the target of God’s salvation truly is.

On newattitude.org in an interview with Justin Taylor he comments about those affiliated with Emergent:

Broadly speaking, we can use the term “emerging churches” to describe any church that is seeking to incarnate and contextualize Christianity for a postmodern culture. That’s a really broad definition–so broad, in fact, that it includes folks who would quickly disavow the “emerging” label! Within that broad category would be a subset called “Emergent.” Emergent Village is an organization with a national coordinator in the U.S. (Tony Jones). Its proponents would say that this Emergent subset is more innovative and progressive and provocative in terms of theology and philosophy; its critics would say categorize it as being the more liberal wing of the movement. Most of these folks don’t believe in inerrancy and seek to minimize substitutionary atonement (if they believe it at all). So it’s hard to see how these folks really fit under the broad evangelical label. (Which is why some of them have adopted the “post-evangelical” label.)

Now, I don’t want to throw Justin Taylor under the bus here and bash him - in the very next paragraph he does offer some praise for those affiliated with Emergent Village (I would encourage you to go read the whole article, it’s question #10)

But here’s what I have to ask - what’s the deal with these two doctrines being the biggest hang ups?  Before I go any further, let me be clear that I am a recovering five-point Calvinist.  I was introduced to that approach in college and still appreciate what it taught me, but I eventually rejected it in favor of a more neo-orthodox approach.  Needless to say, I am very familiar with the type of thinking espoused by newattitude.org All that being said - why are these two doctrines so central for Reformed types?

The Inerrancy of Scripture as a doctrine is fraught with problems from a purely philosophical point of view.  The definition of inerrancy that I am familiar with (and I believe more people adopt) is that in the original manuscripts the bible was inerrant.  This is of course needed, because there are so many manuscripts of the bible floating around that don’t all agree.  But here’s the problem with that doctrine: it cannot be tested, nor is it taught by scripture.  The bible never talks about it’s original documents or anything of the sort.  I know people appeal to various scripture verses to argue that the bible claims inerrancy and I’m not going to get into disputing that.  My rejection of innerancy doesn’t come from a lower view of biblical authority, but because I realize that a doctrine that cannot be tested (such as the innerancy of scripture) should not be taught.  You can say that you just need to have faith - and that’s fine, but I’ll put my faith in Jesus Christ, the living and reigning LORD, and not a series of manuscripts that were lost long ago.

The hang up on substitutionary atonement is almost more puzzling.  My guess it that if asked, people like Justin would freely admit that the atonement is a multi-facted thing.  Atonement doesn’t just deal with our own personal salvation - but why has that been so elevated?  I know personally I don’t reject the substitutionary atonement as a whole, I simply believe that its an aspect of God’s mission to become at-one with the whole world.  I believe that atonement is a cosmic thing, with a number of different implications, one of which is substitutionary.  However, the traditional reformed camp seems to have elevated one aspect of the atonement to the standard of an essential - as long as you believe that you’re okay.  Needless to say, I do reject their understanding of atonement because I believe it’s too focused on one aspect, so they’d count me out too.  So am I trying to minimize substitutionary atonement?  Perhaps, only because it seems to be the only thing about the atonement we’ve emphasized in Reformed circles.  And here’s why:

• When you ask a lot of people why Jesus died on the cross, they’ll respond : To save us from our sins.  Now this is a true statement, no argument there.  The problem is that when you ask them, “But why did he end up on the cross if all he did was come to save us so we could go to heaven after we die?” you realize that there are people who don’t understand that Jesus’ ministry was do subversive and threatening to the powers that be that they decided they needed to get rid of him. (For the sake of self-promotion, check out my post on Why did Jesus die?)  For people not to understand this is a huge indictment against us.  People cannot be disciples of Jesus if they don’t understand what it cost him and hence what it may cost anyone who seeks to follow him
• The cosmic element of the atonement, which is especially strong in Revelation and Romans, it completely missed.  Many Christians today are gnostic, just passing through this world so they can live in the next one, rather than understanding the atonement as part of a universal new creation of all things - the making of all things new (Rev. 21) rather than the making of all new things.  Hence, people don’t think environmental matters are as important because eventually this world is going to get destroyed.
• I even find that we’ve focused so much on substitution that we’ve failed to understand the significance of the atonement when it comes to hope.  The good news isn’t just that our sins are forgiven, but rather that death, the one enemy no human can defeat, has been defeated and the world has been radically altered.  The hope of the atonement is that death will not have the last word on our lives.  As the classic hymn states, “Where oh death is now thy sting?”  It is only because of Jesus that we can sing that line and taunt death
• Speaking of death, what about Jesus’ victory over the power of evil?  While we in post-mainline circles tend to avoid the topic of spiritual warfare entirely, in many evangelical circles it’s a big topic.  If we believe with Paul in the principalities and powers of the world we should not forget that Jesus waged the battle that is the turning point in the war between good and evil.

I think one of the best statements on the atonement comes from our own Book of Confessions:God’s reconciling act in Jesus Christ is a mystery which the Scriptures describe in various ways. It is called the sacrifice of a lamb, a shepherd’s life given for his sheep, atonement by a priest; again it is ransom of a slave, payment of a debt, vicarious satisfaction of a legal penalty, and victory over the powers of evil. These are expressions of a truth which remains beyond the reach of all theory in the depths of God’s love for man. They reveal the gravity, cost, and sure achievement of God’s reconciling work. (Confession of 1967, A.1)

Thoughts?