RyanBolger.com

I’m off to Yale for a couple of days — it will be a real quick visit — not sure if I’ll get online at all…

Will return to blogging next week…

Technorati Tags: Yale

I was sitting in a hotel room late the other day, flipping channels as I haplessly attempted sleep. I ran across the repeat of Bill Maher’s show with Kurt Vonnegut which originally aired last week. I found myself both agreeing and disagreeing with much of what was said that night. Maher and Vonnegut were talking about New Orleans, America, and politics, but then they shifted to a very surprising discussion about Jesus. Here is the extent of their conversation:

Bill Maher (to Kurt Vonnegut Jr.):

In your new book you make a very interesting point about how the Republican right is always wanting to post the Ten Commandments in public places, which of course is from the Old Testament, but they never, ever seem to want to post the sayings of Jesus, like the Beautitudes: Blessed are the meek, Blessed are the merciful, Blessed are the peacemakers. They’re such Christians but they never want to put up what Jesus said.



Kurt Vonnegut (in response to Bill Maher):

Well I don’t think they’ve ever paid any attention to him, and if he were to show up now with that kind of talk I think he would probably be given lethal injection rather than crucifixion.

No, I don’t think they know anything about Jesus…

 

They then went on to address other political issues in Vonnegut’s work. Regardless of one’s opinion of their stated politics, I found their discussion of Jesus quite revealing. They each knew the Beautitudes, most specifically they knew about Jesus’ humility, his mercy, and his commitment to peacemaking. Somehow, they also knew that Jesus’ life was somehow instructive, that it ought to be emulated somehow. They equated knowing Jesus with living like Jesus.

I’ve interviewed Emerging Church leaders who have told me the same thing. They tell me that their non-Christian neighbors know who Jesus is — the problem is that the church doesn’t. These leaders tell me their simple (but not easy) task is to emulate Jesus as a community, to resemble the way he lived, in very public ways. They do not need to introduce those in the world to Jesus — these ‘neighbors’ already have a pretty good idea of what he is about. Their fundamental task is to introduce these neighbors to a Christ-following church, i.e. to a people that resembles this humble, merciful and peace-making Jesus.

Not a few times does the church find that the prophetic critique of its life comes not from those inside the community but from those labeled ‘world’. Rather than defend ourselves, we need to listen  and see what the Holy Spirit is saying to us…

Technorati Tags: Jesus, politics, America

A colleague from another school recently asked if I could list the innovations of Emerging Churches. The question implies that Emerging Churches introduced ‘tweaks’ or glosses, small external changes to expressions of church. However, I believe the change introduced is much more fundamental and cannot be reduced to incremental shifts. Those new forms of church that only tweak the church service I identify as Gen X/Y churches, not Emerging Churches. I’ve noted nine practices or patterns that encompass a range of expressions. These patterns are not unique to Emerging Churches, as churches in history have practiced some of these activities at one time or another. Two things are novel about the expressions now — one, the unique constellation of particular practices, and two, the fact that these patterns are embodied within a particular culture, i.e. postmodern/global culture. Given those caveats, I’ll attempt an all-too brief snapshot. Again, each of these ‘innovations’ give rise to multiple expressions in Emerging Churches (and I will not list those):

• A return to Jesus/sermon on the mount as central to faith, thus ethics are central to their concerns as opposed to simply heart questions…
• Emerging Churches do not believe in a secular realm, thus, church services will look very secular to the outsider. Correspondingly, emerging church people see many things in the so-called secular realm as spiritual (they see God’s fingerprints everywhere).
• ECs believe in community more than they do in ‘church’ — thus community gives rise to a church service and not vice-versa –
• They give space to outsiders (including other faiths) and focus on similarities and relationship rather than differences. They do not gloss over differences, but they get the relationship part right first.
• Hospitality becomes central practice of the church — some churches see this as essential discipleship — they train people how to open up their homes. Hospitality often manifests in service to others, especially in the realm formerly known as secular…
• Creativity is an expression of worship to God, giving honor to the Creator by creating. Church services honor God to the extent so that creativity occurs by all participants. Leaders are responsible to facilitate these venues, to help provide a context for this very physical, material encounter with God. These contexts provide space for worship production by all.
• Leading is not fixed around the single leader — leaders lead, but the single leader leading all things is anathema. Those who are gifted to lead particular activities, because of their passion, expertise, or wisdom, are able to do so without restraint. A move in the direction of consensus and shared leadership occurs.
• The spiritual has to do with all of life and not simply with acts of devotion. Thus, there is an embrace of those pre-modern and pre-Reformation practices that recognize God’s work everywhere, not simply in the quiet time or worship service.

An all too brief snapshot, and it is simply my ‘take’ on things. Again, these patterns give rise to a multitude of expressions. Hopefully this will facilitate more conversation with my colleague regarding the Emerging Church…

Technorati Tags: Emerging_Church

From Edu-Blogged news and specifically Will Richardson, I read how teaching is changing because of the web. Rather than the teacher serving as the authoritative voice and primary source of class content, students look to the web for resources. In response, teachers may either ignore this reality, fight against it, or serve as a “guide on the side”. Even further, teachers may encourage and facilitate the web’s use. In this case, teachers serve as connectors rather than content providers. They bring their students to the information that the teacher finds most helpful and they provide contexts for working through the material. As I am fairly new to the teaching scene, these thoughts are quite sobering. I get strokes when I get to be the ’sage on the stage’. Moving to the side changes the way I think about teaching completely.

As I think about churches, I realize the web will or ought to change the way we do church and leadership. Rather than the pastor or leaders serving as the one source or even the primary source of information for the community, church members will be looking to the Internet for resources regarding their faith. Leadership as the single funnel or portal of information will cease to be workable. Leaders will have two options — to control the information, which will become increasingly difficult, or again, like the new type of teacher, to serve as a connector rather than a content provider. Leaders will come alongside to help gather, interpret, start conversations, and build the community around helpful content.

I believe if we work with this cultural change rather than fight against it, we will see wonderful life come to our faith communities. I’ve heard some leaders respond, when I ask them who the leader of their community is, ‘hopefully the Holy Spirit”. I believe this shift creates an opportunity for a move in this direction, i.e. to an egalitarian spirit-led community. Although it may feel like a chastened role for the leader, I do believe “leader as connector” creates a space for the Holy Spirit to serve as the primary leader of our communities.

Technorati Tags: Leadership, teaching, technology

Steve Collins, ever the creative thinker for new forms of church, muses about the web and its impact on documents. He speaks of the control that authors once had on their text, a control that the web obliterated as readers break up, interpret, and parse the document in any way that is suitable to their uses. Steve then turns his sights to the church and ponders what might happen if the web impacts the church as much as it has cultures.

What might the church learn from the web? Any modern church leader is trained to maintain control over the whole process of what we know as church, manifesting most specifically in the maintenance of order. Our church authors/producers/leaders are not prepared to release the text/church service/way of life to the readers/consumers/members. None of their training has prepared them for this uncontrolled way of living in community. So much of church training assumes the leader will face a passive audience that will receive their ‘text’ in its entirety. We are not trained to participate in church as an ongoing dynamic conversation of equals. I know this, because I train these same leaders.

What would it mean for leaders to let go of control, to realize that it is pointless to try and contain the life of faith, just as pointless as it would be to attempt to control the web? What would happen if our authority to act as leaders came from the many unsolicited links one receives rather than the title one bears? What would happen if our members can post 24-7 and are not required to sign in through a single portal, i.e. not seek permission for ministry but are trusted as friends and colleagues to create meaningful God inspired activities?

I’m just posing a few questions, to which I do not have good answers. Stepping back a bit, it has been an elusive task of the church to see the priesthood of believers realized. If we want to imagine what that an egalitarian, spirit-led community might look like, we need look no further than the liberating freedom that many experience within the web community.

Technorati Tags: Emerging_Church, Steve_Collins, technology

I’ve been alarmed by the immediate dismissal of Christians who offer a prophetic witness to society, accusing these believers of simply parroting Republican or Democratic party lines. Are our words simply a thin veneer tightly bonded to partisan politics, or do we Christians have something much deeper and more helpful to say? On its best days, the church serves as a prophetic voice to society — as a people who (hopefully) model a different way to live, who point to another reality at work. Christians who have an insight into working of the powers (be it political, economic, the media, or organizations, or…) must be allowed to speak. It has been an important role for the church in history (before the existence of Democrats and Republicans) to call institutions to be more Christlike, all the while knowing that efforts by these institutions will always be partial and incomplete. Those Christians who do offer these assessments must not be dismissed simply as liberals or conservatives. To truly follow Jesus, Christians must speak to all those in power, standing with Jesus on the side of the marginalized, the oppressed, and the outcast, and extending hospitality and generosity without restraint. Those powers that constrain these practices at any level are always worthy of exhortation.

I say the following to myself as well as to others: If a fellow Christian stands with Jesus and rebukes the powers, do not stop her or him. Christians, if you have something to say, please say it — don’t let partisan politics inhibit the expression of your primary identity as Christ-followers.

Technorati Tags: politics, prophetic speech

Graham Old of Leaving Munster has an article on Revolutionary Generosity that also appeared in Next Wave. He puts forth the idea of Jubilee, of the kind of generosity Jesus modeled to the people of Israel. Jesus, in a sense, was re-interpreting (restoring?) Torah for the people of God, encouraging a radical generosity. I’m quite challenged by this perspective. Emerging Churches focus on the life of Christ, i.e. that the actual way Jesus lived was exemplary for us — that what we receive from Jesus is more than simply his death and resurrection.

For those communities with a strong tithing tradition, I would encourage them to maintain those same practices. However, I would buttress these practices with teachings of the radical generosity of the life of Christ that goes way beyond the tithe. Thanks Graham for keeping this in front of us. The words of John Howard Yoder never cease to challenge me.

Technorati Tags: Economics

A couple of weeks ago I discussed a class I was retro-fitting. The title was mission strategy and as the course had been historically taught, the students would read some church growth books and rely on business models to create a mission strategy for their ministry. I struggled with where to go with it — could strategy be redeemed, where a strategy would be more influenced by the biblical narrative than by the latest business guru? Ultimately the proof will be with the students, and I will let them decide, but here was my attempt at ‘redeeming’ strategy.

The students (who were all training to be campus ministers) had already taken two courses (anthropology and worldview) and so I decided to build on their recently attained cultural understanding. Instead of going straight to strategy, I wanted them to investigate how it is the people of God interacted with the nations/cultures of the world throughout history.

First, I had them read Old Testament missional texts and create strategies solely from those sources. Next, I had them investigate the patterns of witness in Matthew and create mission strategies from there. I did the same with Mark, with Luke (Acts), with John (and letters and Rev), with Paul in Ephesians and Colossians, and with Peter. Drawing from these patterns of Old Testament and New Testament witness, i.e. these narratives, I had them create a biblical strategy for their campus. It was quite different than the pragmatic/business strategy they thought they would create.

Second, I had them draw ideas and patterns from church history. They created a strategy only using the pre-Christendom church (100-300). Next, I had them perform a mission/monastic strategy (300-1000) from drawing on early East Syrian missionaries to China and India, from drawing on Benedict, and others. Next (1000-1793) they continued to create strategies based on Francis, on Dominic, on the Jesuits. These contexts included Europe, the Americas and China.

Next, we created strategies based on the great (19th) century of mission (as with all movements it had its pros and cons), looking at this sending era which ended in the early to mid-twentieth century. Our last phase of strategy covered worldwide Pentecostalism, African Independent Churches, the Chinese House Church movement, among others.

At this point we had posters all over the walls featuring these movements combined with similar ideas and stories of their own campuses. The students’ task was now to integrate the biblical and the historical with what they knew culturally about their campus group in order to create a comprehensive approach or strategy. They were to look to the past to widen their perspective, for patterns, and for inspiration (but never simply to copy). These were their new tools for improvisation…

It was really fun to teach the course in this way, and the students (who talked to me) seemed to rave about our time together. We had tremendous fun in the process, and needless to say, I learned a ton. Here are a few pix of our time together.

Technorati Tags: Fuller Theological Seminary, Mission_Strategy