Back in August I sat down with Mike Harland, Director for Lifeway Worship, to talk through the issues of relevance and reverence in the gathered church's worship. Because I love the church, and hate it when we get distracted from what matters most to God, I decided to share more of my thoughts here on the blog concerning the perennial war over worship.

The reason worship wars exist is because the church thinks it is fighting for something permanent when it is actually temporary. Musical styles and service preferences are like a jacket that can be taken on or off depending upon the temperature. It is used only when needed. Worship as a theological reality is not fit for such pedestrian arguments. It is to exist in the heart of all people-- and it does. When we think we're debating styles and techniques and forms, we are really defending our own affections and deeply felt preferences. Most often we defend what is nostalgic rather than what is helpful. It's no wonder then that even attempts at ceasefires result in more fuel for the blaze.

I will lay my cards on the table: I was not raised in the church or in the subculture of the Bible Belt. I came to Christ at a later age and when I began my ministry it was with the urban poor in Buffalo, New York. I have been called by some "a son of the contemporary church movement." I don't know if that's necessarily true, but I know what it means. I do not have the traditional church DNA in me like so many others I've known, pastored, and appreciated.

So, it could be that it is hard for me to get inside the shoes of the traditional worship advocate. (Though ancient church music has now become a favorite on my iPod.) Or it could be that having come from an irreligious home in addition to my travels observing the worship practices of global Christians that I have a different perspective.

I won't deny I have personal preferences. For instance, it is clear that country and western music is not of God. (That's another joke; don't tell my friend Ricky Skaggs I said that.) Nevertheless, what I try to do is what we all should do in matters of preference and praise-- commit to the reality that worship is not ultimately about us.

And because worship is not about us, I don't think we end the worship wars in our local congregations merely by compromise. Compromise is noble; consensus is better. A truce just gets 100% of our church worshiping at 50%. It is not compromise we want, but unity. So how do we get to that ever-elusive goal, that aim Jesus laid out for us in His High Priestly Prayer in John 17? Here are five ideas.

1. Rally around Truth, Not a Truce

In the same prayer Jesus prayed that His church would be one (John 17:21-22), He prayed that they would be sanctified by the truth of God's word (John 17:17).

When we come at the worship discussion we have to back up a bit and adopt a good theological framework for our conversations, because the church too often leaps to the assumption that "music = worship." Or perhaps we frame it a bit more broadly and think in terms of a "worship service." But the truth is that worship occurs in the whole of life. We are never not worshiping; our affections are always oriented somewhere or to someone. Minimizing worship to a one hour experience on Sunday monrings, or further down to merely the time of music in that experience, means many of us only dedicate thirty minutes of each week to worship of Christ. When we practice this minimization, it means that the rest of the time we're worshiping someone else (usually ourselves).

It is a harsh accusation to make, but as our music and production skills have increased, our worship has suffered because we have engaged in them as the outpouring of self-worship. So we must remember that worship is for every hour of every day of every week. Our lives are to be oriented to the worship of God. And the chances are, if we thought of worship that way, we would not put so much personal stake in hearing our favorite style of music on Sunday mornings. The entirety of our worship would not be loaded into that slice of time.

Holding personal preferences loosely allows for greater unity in the body and advancement of God's mission. The truth God seeks is that we rally to the cause of His glory among the nations rather than deciding is we will have two hymns and three choruses or three hymns and two choruses this Sunday.

2. Acknowledge that Preferences are Personal

I have witnessed the angst around worship music firsthand. I think that in some churches, a pastor could get away with preaching heresy so long as he's cool, funny, and has a good video clip. But if a pastor tries to alter the worship style, it is time to start looking for a new job.

This works both ways, for the favorers of so-called "contemporary praise" and the adherents to more traditional worship music. Neither appears willing to give up ground, and they have planted their flags in either Relevance (for the contemporary folks) or Reverence (for the traditionalists). (Hence, the name of the dialog in the video at the top of this post.)

In many churches where a worship war is brewing or is in outright conflict, one group perceives themselves to be pushing forward toward the next generation (relevance) while another is trying to pull back to a once-honored method (reverence). One group thinks contemporary music or a more casual style will suit the modern generation and appeal more to the lost. Meanwhile the other group thinks all of that is just worldly compromise and, furthermore, arrogant to casually dismiss the styles that have served the church well, in some cases, for hundreds of years.

When either of these scenarios occurs it is usually because we have elevated our preferences to the level of principles. We are "taking a stand" for something important: our own comfort, convenience, and concerns. And all the while we're trying to give God his due or the lost people in the pew it turns out we're really just making worship about us.

3. Realize that Relevance and Reverence Are Not at War with Each Other

What those who push forward should realize is that relevance is not a goal; it is a tool. It is not the end, but one (of many) means to the end. Relevance for relevance's sake never helped anybody. Playing a shocking song at the front of your Easter service may get headlines and upset religious people, but that's about all it does. Having rock music fans think you're a cool church is not the "win" you're really looking for. A smart church will be culturally discerning, but always biblically-driven first.

On the other hand, the traditionalists' placement of reverence on external styles is also wrongheaded. Reverence is not first and foremost an outward expression. It is a quality of the heart. Of course, it results in outward expressions, but take the story of David dancing before the Ark, for example. His free mode of worship was a scandal to Saul's daughter Michal, who was watching from afar. David's heart was turned reverently to the Lord, and this provoked a physical celebration from him. It sure looked irreverent to another. Many times today shouting, clapping, and dancing are seen as disorderly or irreverent or self-indulgent, but all three of those modes of worship are seen in Scripture though curiously absent from "reverent" worship services.

At the heart of many of our worship wars is, sad to say, idolatry. Our worship of things other than God drives the way we contend for ways to worship God. When reverence is equated with austerity, it can reveal an idolization of familiarity and comfort and control. When relevance is equated with a production carte blanche or "freedom of expression," it can reveal an idolization of trendiness and self and showmanship. Both relevance and reverence can cloak idolatry of cultural forms and expressions.

In both cases, what is revealed is an idolatry of music. And music is just... well, music. As my colleague Mike Harland, president of LifeWay Worship has said, "You will never achieve spiritual goals with a musical means." We see music as important in Scripture but never a particular form or function as necessary for discipleship. And never does God dictate a particular style, rhyme pattern, or lyrical format.

4. Embrace Humility

The evangelical church needs a ceasefire on fighting over cultural forms. A focus on biblical meanings will add a healthy dose of humility to our churches.

When I was young in the ministry, I was charged with ministry to both youth and seniors (go figure). One day I was going to lead worship at a nursing home. So, I took my guitar. I'll never forget this 92 year old woman, Miss Langley, who put her hand on my arm and said "Don't worry about the guitar, young man, we're just gonna sing and you can sing with us." I was bringing a relevance they didn't need, and I had to be mature enough to see the hindrance I was about to become.

Imagine would what happen if worship warriors actually took on the attitude of Jesus (per Phillipians 2) and did not regard their agendas as something to be grasped but instead took on the posture of servanthood. What if we (per Romans 12:10) actually tried to outdo one another showing honor? Humility is a "win" for every worshiper.

5. Cultivate Consensus, Not Compromise

We have to be mature enough to worship in different ways, even in someone else's ways. The so-called "blended service" has a typical formula of two songs for me and two songs for you and one song for that other guy. I think it is a sign of carnality and a lack of community in worship. Many times the blended worship service doesn't please anybody but maybe the pastor who has given up trying to cultivate consensus. The blended service is an equal opportunity to anger everyone. It can be a sad compromise.

I also believe we need to be careful about multiple services with specialized genres. What is the motivation? Is the division a compromise? We need to be cautious about pandering to the consumeristic side of Western Christianity. We need to ask ourselves what our motivation is, and be honest with our answer. If we're being mission-focused, that's a good and worthy goal. But if we're market-focused (and Christians are the market), we are off track.

If you go the blended or alternative service route, please do so not because you made a truce, but because you stuffed your egos and decided to glorify God for the sake of reaching your community in a language they understand; Spanish, biker, redneck, liturgical, or whatever.

Do the traditionalists appreciate the contemporary songs? Do the relevantists appreciate the hymns? Do they love each other? Do they see these differing forms as acceptable forms of worship?

Pastored well, a healthy congregation will seek consensus on the positives of God's glory and mission rather than settle for compromise on the negatives of personal preferences and styles. A church in consensus would rather have Jesus than the hymn "I'd Rather Have Jesus." A church in consensus will sing of God's greatness rather than need "How Great is Our God" as their anthem. Music will not bring unity in of itself. Worship brings unity. So long as it is the worship of Jesus.

While speaking at the Together for Adoption Conference, I visited a bit with my friend with Tony Merida. The Meridas have recently adopted four children from the Ukraine and have a passion for orphan care. I always appreciate his passion for the gospel and the mission of God.

Seeing him, reminded me that Tony's new book is out and I wanted to share a bit about it through the foreword I wrote for the book. It is a short foreword, but for some reason I manage to quote a Journey song, the Fireproof movie, and Lord of the Rings.

Not sure what got into me that day... but the book is worth your time, even if my foreword might not be!

The Barna Group released the findings of a new study that showed "congregational size is related to the nature of a congregation's religious beliefs, religious behavior and demographic profile."

Specifically the study showed "statistically significant differences between churches of 100 or fewer adult attenders and churches of 1000 or more adult attenders." In fact, the only issue covered where no real difference existed was whether the person had prayed during the previous week. Here is some of the information from the article at Barna.org.

On all 9 of the belief statements tested, attenders of large churches were more likely than those engaged in a small or mid-sized congregation to give an orthodox biblical response - e.g., the Bible is totally accurate in all the principles it teaches, Satan is not merely symbolic but exists, Jesus led a sinless life, God is the all-knowing, all-powerful creator of the world who still rules the universe, etc.

On seven of the eight behavioral measures, attenders of large churches were substantially more likely than those of small churches to be active. (These included behaviors such as attending church in the past week, reading the Bible in the past week, volunteering at their church in the past week, etc.) The average difference related to these seven behaviors was 17 percentage points.

It was also shown that larger churches were more likely to have college graduates, wealthy attenders, and attenders/members with children under 18. Adults in these Protestant mega-churches were also more likely to vote Republican.

Another interesting point was that House Churches were not following the trend of other small congregations.

The religious beliefs and behaviors of people who attend house churches, which average about 20 adults in attendance, are more similar to the results for large conventional churches (i.e., more than 500 adults) than they are to the outcomes among those who attend small conventional churches (i.e., less than 50 adults).

So head over to the Barna Group, read the report and come back here to discuss.

Christian George has written two books that are connecting with a growing number of people - especially younger generations. Sex, Sushi and Salvation, and his newest, Godology: Because Knowing God Changes Everything, both push a biblical concept of God while using very non-traditional language and imagery. Christian lives in St. Andrews, Scotland with his wife Rebecca. He holds a Master of Divinity Degree from Beeson Divinity School and is working on a PhD in theology.

Christian will be on the blog today interacting with your questions about the book, theology, the Christian life, or the younger generations in the church.

So Christian, why "Godology"?

Godology is the idea of theology up close and personal. I wrote Godology because I sense within my generation a real hunger for authentic Christianity. This is a book for those who want to dig deeper in their faith--to trade rakes for shovels. In each chapter I explore an attribute of God, a spiritual discipline that helps us know him better, and a practical way to express that truth in the world. It's my hope that this upward, inward, and outward approach will foster intimacy with Christ and community with others.

How is this book different from other books about God and spiritual disciplines?

One thing I try to do is use fresh language to talk about ancient truths. There's so much in the past that evangelicals can draw on that will aid us in the future. What I'm saying in this book isn't new - it's orthodox Christian evangelicalism through and through. But I love to look at the Bible through lenses that help us think about our faith in new ways. You won't find some of the spiritual disciplines I talk about on typical "top 10 spiritual discipline lists" (art, labyrinth walking, and vow making, for example), but they're practices that have benefited Christians throughout the centuries and can invigorate our spiritual lives.

You have some pretty creative chapter titles. In "Jesus Ninja," you talk about God's power and say things like, "Sin bows before Christ its sensei." How did you decided to use these kinds of images in Godology?

I always try to view life holistically. Christianity isn't compartmentalized to one part of life. It touches everything. I try to see Christ at work in everyday activities - as a [wannabe] martial artist, as a student, and as a musician, whatever. What I'm trying to do is incarnate theology for people who might not pick up an academic theological textbook, and to show people that theology is exciting. Jesus used word pictures to talk about eternal truths. He connected with people through images they could relate to. So when I say that "holiness is the lone Kit Kat bar in a bucket of Butterfingers," or "journals are blogs for the soul," I'm trying to paint the Christian life in a way that a new generation can resonate with.

In Godology, you challenge some of the ways we live life and do church. Talk about some of these.

I'm very hopeful for my generation. I believe God is brewing a revival in our youth groups and on our college campuses. It's not boiling yet, but it's brewing. We're taking our faith outside of the walls of the church and showing the world that Christianity is a call to serve and love in radical ways. In other words, we're tired of a kiddie-pool Christianity; we want to go deeper. In Godology, I encourage believers to take seriously practices that fuel our faith and draw us closer to God and each other. These disciplines are a call to a counter-cultural way of life.

Silence is a forgotten element that can play a significant role in our worship services. Fasting teaches us how to really feast on Christ. Virtual prayer walking can open our eyes to what God is doing in other parts of the globe. God uses practices like these to wipe off our spiritual milk mustaches and exchange earthly habits for holy ones.

In Godology, you talk about God's attributes. Is there one that you have struggled with the most?

Definitely God's holiness. I actually wrote that chapter barefoot - kind of a Moses-before-the-burning-bush approach. Trying to condense God's holiness into twelve pages was an impossible (and probably dangerous) thing to do. I think a more solid understanding of God's holiness is one thing we're starting to recover in our churches - the high voltage glory of God. We're getting glimpses of a God who is bigger and brighter than we thought, and it's reminding us of how God got down and dirty on earth so we can be holy too. That's the beauty of Christianity. Christ came down to lift us up. When we recognize this - when we understand that a holy God intersected with a broken world - we can offer the world something truly worth living for.

Hit Christian with your questions in the comments section below. He'll be on the blog throughout the day.

Alan Hirsch and Michael Frost have written a new book, Rejesus: A Wild Messiah for a Missional Church, in which they call the church to "reconfigure itself," and "recalibrate its mission, around the example and teaching of the radical rabbi from Nazareth."

Alan is a good friend and I am grateful he took the time to answer some questions here and come around the blog today to interact.

Here is our interview:

In simple terms, what problem(s) is ReJesus addressing?

We are addressing what we call 'the subversion of Christianity'; the process by which we remove the defining presence and influence of Jesus for His church, our discipleship, and mission. reJesus is about exactly that...re-Jesus-ing the church! Putting Jesus back into the most basic equation and seeing what happens!

In the past the church has sought and experienced "reformation" (the church's work to bring itself more in line with the expressed will and ways of God) and "revival" (God's work in leading his people to live more in line with his expressed will and ways). How does you call to "ReJesus" the church look similar to and/or different from what has happened throughout the history of the church?

In many ways we believe that both the renewal, as well as revival, of the church and its mission are directly related to the more elemental task of reJesusing the church. Instead of simply reforming the church and its theology, we prefer to use the term 'refounding' the church: and we suggest that we must do this by recovering the definitive role that Jesus plays in shaping church, discipleship, and mission. The fact is Ed, that we so easily remove the influence and role of Jesus from our midst. We do find it hard to live with a Lord, humans tend to prefer our own ways and agendas to that of a demanding Lord/King.

So in ReJesus, are you saying something new, or something old?

Well, actually it is ancient...primal really. Whatever we can say about Christianity, it has everything to do with Christ. Jesus is the Founder and the Gospels are our most foundational stories. We are simply renovating ancient truths. H. Richard Niebuhr was right to note that "The great Christian revolutions came not by the discovery of something that was not known before. They happen when someone takes radically something that was always there."

All of this will sound risky to many readers. Is it? How? Can you tell them why it's worth it?

Oh too right. it is risky! Particularly if we insist on clinging to our middleclass penchant for safety and security, and consumerist addiction to comfort and convenience. I believe that the closer we get to Jesus, the more 'dangerous' he is to us. We prefer to keep him at arms length and engage him from the relative safety of objective theology. Why is it worth it? Because without Jesus we have no legitimacy, or in fact do we actually have Christianity, because Christianity minus Christ equals Religion. And hey! Who wants a religion? Is it worth it? It is our eternal destiny to be conformed to the image of Christ (Rom.8:29.) We cannot escape it. It is our joy, our salvation, our freedom. All else is just messing with the fringes of the faith.

Why is it that keeping Christ at the center of our confessional identity can be so much easier than remaining Christocentric in our person, practices and piety?

Because simple confession, like theology, as important as it is to our integrity, is not enough for us to truly 'know' God. I would argue that to truly know God we must supplement intellectual knowledge with that type of knowledge that can only come from engaging our hearts (our passion, feelings, our capacity for love) as well as our actions (obedience and action). We spend the good part of a chapter on this aspect of what we call "Hebraic epistemology". This is what it means to take the Shema seriously. And Jesus himself puts this at the center of a missional discipleship. "One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, "Of all the commandments, which is the most important?" "The most important one" answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength. 'The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these." (Mark 12:28-31 NIV) The mind is simply not enough to know and love God as we must.

In the book you make a biblical argument for experiencing and living under the Lordship of a sent and sending God. A God that is immanent, close and accessible through Jesus Christ. Is there a place for seeing and worshipping the God who is also seen as transcendent, holy and "other?"

Of course! God's transcendence is vital to a Christian understanding of God. But you are right in noticing that we have chosen to focus on the primacy and centrality of God Jesus as He is revealed in and through the Incarnation. We believe strongly that whatever ideas of God we might entertain; they must first be interpreted through the lens of Jesus--whatever that might entail. We call this fact that Jesus reveals God to us, 'The Christlike God" because we know through his life that God is indeed like Jesus--he says if you have seen him you have seen the Father...he and the Father are one!! Sure we know God through Scripture as well as nature...but the most distilled, and central, knowledge of God must be gleaned from the life, teaching, ministry of Jesus as revealed in Scripture. This is what makes us distinctly Christ-ian. This has massive implications for us, especially for our understanding of God, but it does not exhaust the extent of the revelation we find in Jesus, because not only does Jesus redefine our concept of God but also he shows us the perfect expression of humanity as God intended it. In other words, he models for us what a true human being should be like. Therefore, focusing our discipleship on Jesus forces us to take seriously the implications of following him, of becoming like him. It sets the agenda for our spirituality. It acknowledges that Jesus as our model, our teacher, and our guide is normative for the Christian life. He is the standard by which we measure ourselves, the quality of our discipleship, and therefore our spirituality

You have done much to skewer cultural conditioned views of Jesus ("bearded lady Jesus" was my favorite). But, when I read the book I wanted to ask something that is both a question and a compliment-- the Jesus you described looked a lot like you, Alan-- a wandering teacher calling for change, a wild man with a powerful message, focused on the Kingdom of God, and with a Hebrew worldview. How culturally conditioned do you think your view of Jesus might be?

None of us is free from trying to make Jesus like us on a good day! Actually that's what we are trying to 'skewer' it debunking the stereotypes of Jesus. Actually I am a strong believer in ongoing validity of the second commandment--we should not make any images of God. Every time we attempt to image God, be it mental or metal, we limit him and thereby seek to control him. We must always allow Jesus to be beyond any stereotype that we might wish to make of him. As you say, a lot of the book is iconoclastic. It's a bit of fun at our own expense really. But hey, thanks for the compliment!

While everyone can benefit from reading this book, who needs to read it (for whom is it most critical)?

We hope that the book is accessible to all thoughtful Christians. It is certainly geared towards a missional audience. But I do think it will appeal mostly to people engaged leadership and formal ministry.

As pastors seek to bring about the change you call for in the book, what are the top areas they should focus on?

Recovering Jesus in thought, imagination, action of the church. Radicalizing the church by recovering the ethos, teachings, lifestyle of the Founder. And to do this they will have to take discipleship in the Way of Jesus seriously. I can't think of anything more foundational and important to the life and mission of the church.

What other books, resources would you recommend to those who are convicted that such things need to change?

You know, I love Soren Kierkegaard, but he is probably too complex for most people to read directly. A good introduction or two on his thinking is good medicine. For instance he saw it as his life's task Soren Kierkegaard, when he said, rather cheekily, "My mission is to introduce Christianity into Christendom." Dietrich Bonheoffer's work and thinking is timeless. I loved Stanley Hauerwas' commentary on Matthew (Brazos Theological Commentary) and Jacques Ellul's work in The Subversion of Christianity, and The Presence of the Kingdom, is really excellent. Also, Debs and I are working on a book on missional discipleship--published early '10. In many ways it will be a guide to outworking what it means to take Jesus seriously. And then of course there is your work on breaking the discipleship code.

Alan will be around today to dialogue about the book. Feel free to post questions and comments below.

Eric Geiger is originally from New Orleans, but currently lives in Miami, Florida serving as the Executive Pastor at Christ Fellowship. Many of you will recognize his name from the book, Simple Church (coauthored with Thom Rainer). His new book, Identity: Who You Are in Christ "helps Christians clearly understand who they really are as defined by God's word and unpacks the practical response that goes along with each wonderfully dramatic, empowering, and liberating truth." Sound good? Check out our interview with Eric below for more. This is the third interview in a B&H Church Leadership Books series (the prior two with Brad Waggoner and then Sam and Thom Rainer).

Can you tell us a little about yourself and your background?

Continue reading Eric Geiger and Our Identity in Christ (and some free stuff about halfway through the interview!).

My paper on the emerging church is now online. It is in a journal along with some other issues. You can download the journal here and read my article inside. (I am not publishing it here so that that NOBTS web site gets a few hits.)

The journal flows from the influence of two major streams in the church today. Others have reported it elsewhere and I will repeat it here: there is great energy in the Reformed and in the emerging church movements-- much more than we find in some of the other movements vying for attention.

The first section deals with Calvinism. And, in the spirit of keeping my focus on the topic at hand, I am working hard to resist any comment on the contents thereof.

I wrote a paper on the emerging church. My paper is not a "Baptist" paper like some of the others in the journal. By that I mean I am not writing about Baptist denominational distinctives or from a Baptist denominational perspective as my presentation is more broadly evangelical. That is partly because I presented it first at the Evangelical Free Church Midwinter Ministerial, an annual denomination wide theology symposium of sorts that asked me to come in and keynote for a long (8 hour!) day. I shared a very truncated version at a conference on the emerging church at the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. In both cases, I made revisions after each presentation and the presentations and paper have been a work in progress.

I welcome you to take a look at the paper and correct me where I am wrong, update or clarify my history, and just discuss in general. I am going to watch the thread for a bit and see what I can learn.

Three people "respond" to me in the journal: one says I was too hard, the other too soft, and the third just right. (Just kidding.) The other papers all share their own ideas-- they are not simply responses to my thoughts. They are worth a read. One is written by the President of a College (Free Will Baptist Bible College). He has a good grasp of the issues. The second is by Jack Allen, who may have been off his medication when he wrote it. And the third is by Page Brooks, a professor at NOBTS, who told me that he mostly agreed with me because he read all my books while a student. (I immediately commented to him that I was ONLY 42. Grin.)

Andrew Jones (tallskinny kiwi) was gracious enough to take a read and help me out with some suggestions. As part of the research, we had help (on the history part) from Dave Travis, Doug Pagitt, Tony Jones, Andrew Jones, and Brian McLaren. If you have any more ideas on the history, I would be particularly interested as I will publish that part in a book (linked here). I focused on the U.S. expressions here, but have about 6 pages I edited out (due to space) that dealt with more international expressions.

With that being said, my evaluation is my evaluation. And, for that matter, historical errors are my own as well. I have tried to be fair and that means I will please few. But, such is life. I am a critic of some things in the Emerging Church, but I work hard to be an honest one. (When you have been lied about yourself by key religious leaders, I think you try to be more sensitive to others.) But, at the end of the day, I think an increasing number of voices who identify themselves as evangelical and emerging are expressing concerns similar to those here-- my paper is neither brilliant or filled with new insights.

This paper was done before I did some additional interviews with some leaders of the Emerging Church. I will put those here on the blog so you can hear from them directly over the next few weeks. Don't just listen to people talk about people--listen to the people about whom they are talking.

As I mentioned at the conferences, if you want to know more about the emerging church, the books I recommend (read in order) are:

1. The New Christians by Jones
2. Emerging Churches by Gibbs and Bolger
3. Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church by Carson
4. Why We Are Not Emergent by DeYoung and Kluck

I suggest you read them in order because you should hear from a movement before you critique a movement. The books I list are not necessarily the best, but I think they are helpful because they are influential and help you to understand the ideas of proponents and critics of the movement.

I have started into Phyllis Tickle's new book so that may bump the order around a bit. However, I am having doubts about her premise that "emergence" is a 500 year shift of Christian faith. I will delve into that later, but I simply do not see the movement as nearly that influential. This week many have said that emerging is going away-- well, I doubt that. However, I do not think it is the new Protestant Reformation either.

Once you get over your fixation with printed paper, read the Emergent Village blog, Tall Skinny Kiwi (Andrew Jones), and Jesus Creed (Scott McKnight) to better understand the emerging church and its beliefs.

It's also worth noting that in the midst of all this emerging/emergent talk, there is in-house discussion about the validity of the continued use of the terms themselves. Without theological unity among those who adopt the term "emerging," and in light of the ongoing confusion between Emergent and emerging, many are dropping or distancing themselves from these words. Dan Kimball is holding onto what "emerging" meant years ago when he wrote his book, The Emerging Church, but believes the term is used so broadly that defining it today is difficult. Bob Hyatt is just about done with the term, Andrew Jones is dumping it, and Doug Pagitt is using a new term (in addition to the others).

The emerging and Emergent church is an important ecclesiological issue worth working through. Check out the links and my paper, and as always...

Outside the south, many are unaware of revivalism and its influence. Talk of saw dust trails and the like may have conjured images on the frontier, but today these trails tend to be found at home construction sites rather than under big tents.

Some southern Evangelicals are still holding "sawdust revivals." Others have opted for alternate means of communicating the Gospel in ways they consider more suitable for their context. Block parties, for example, provide many avenues for connecting with people who need Jesus. So, few remember what a real tent revival looks like.

A few weeks ago, I journeyed down to St. Bartholomew's Episcopal Church to see an old fashioned revival depicted in the basement of a liturgical church. (I have been a bit too tied up to publish my thoughts. But, better late than never.)

Last week, I told you about the Bible study I'm releasing with Threads called Sent: Living the Missional Nature of the Church. You can read the full post here, where I discuss that "sent-ness" is in the DNA of the Church.

But, as we point out in the Bible study, we aren't just sent on our own accord; we have to understand something about the nature of God if we are really to understand our sent-ness. Many are quick to jump on the missional bandwagon (or throw rocks at it as it passes by) without seriously considering the theology that drives it.

As we look back through the pages of the Old Testament, we see over and over again the God who sends. He sends Moses as an agent of redemption (Ex. 3:12), he sends prophets to proclaim both judgment and restoration (Jer. 1), to his own people and to those who are not (Jonah). Even when he sends his own people into exile as a form of judgment, he sends them with instructions to seek the welfare of the foreign city in which they found themselves sojourning (Jer 29).

As we read through the New Testament we see the Father sent the Son to accomplish redemption for his people and indeed all creation (John 5; 8:42; 1 Jn. 4:14; Rom. 8:18-25; Col. 1:15-20). Then we see the Father and the Son sending the Spirit to bring conviction and conversion to the lost, and to empower the church for the spread of the gospel and the work of making disciples (John 14; 16; Mk. 13:11; Luke 11:13). And finally we see Jesus sending the church into the world, just as the Father sent him (John 20:21; Acts 1:8).

God has always been, and continues to be, the Sender.

So if we, as the church, do not live as sent ones to the people we live among, we are denying that we have come from God. If our identity is found in the God who sends, then "missional" will be more than a buzzword. It's meaning will remain central in defining who we are as the church.

That's what we cover in the first session of the study, in an effort to first lay the theological groundwork for living missionally as the church. You can learn more and get your copy of Sent here.

I wrote an article for the September/October issue of Outreach Magazine called, "Learning from Each Other." In it, I point to those I call the "theologically preoccupied" and the "evangelistically fixated" and encourage us all to learn from one another. If you are not a subscriber, you can and should be: click here.

Here's the article as it ran in the magazine. I will follow it with a few additional comments.

I am a blogger. Just thought I should get it out there in the open. Mind you, I am not a member of the Pajamahadeen--you know, one of those Bible bloggers who lives in his mom's basement, sleeping till noon and writing theology in his pajamas. But I have met them--and they've partially inspired this column.

Moths drawn to the flame

Certain blog posts seem to attract the Pajamahadeen like moths to a flame--for instance, when the post contains key words like "Rick Warren," "missional," "emerging" and "loving people." They seem to hate these topics and post 3,800-word comments with 27 links proving they've exposed the evildoing of their latest heretic du jour.

Well, these bloggers provoked me--and you're reading the result. Whenever I blog about a growing church that is reaching people, I get comments like, "They're growing because they're not preaching the Gospel." Or if I pose some theological questions, I get it from the other side: "Why bother with theology, let's just do whatever it takes to reach people."

In this column three issues ago, I defended Bill Hybels and his view of rel­evance, mentioning John MacArthur in the process. To some, it was as if I decapitated a goat and threw it on an altar--"How dare you defend Hybels and not fully support MacArthur?"

When I had questions for multi-site churches two issues ago, one person expressed concern that I would "denigrate what others have given their lives to." Raising questions is denigrating someone's ministry? Oh, really? (Come by my blog and check out the discerning and charitable conversation multi-site author and pastor Geoff Surrat and I had about multi-site: EdStetzer.com--click on the multi-site info on the right.)

"Theologically Preoccupied" vs. "Evangelistically Fixated"

Blogs seem to magnify an existing problem in the body of Christ: We don't do a very good job listening to and learning from one another.

It seems large numbers of the Theologi­cally Preoccupied scowl across the pages of their study Bibles at the Evangelistically Fixated and accuse them of being culturally adrift--in some cases rightfully so. Many of the Evangelistically Fixated chuckle when they see books on evangelism written by many of the Theologically Preoccupied who sometimes consider the smallness of their churches a sign of their faithfulness.

Let me propose a different way: Learn from one another and take the best from one another's approaches. Theologically deep believers with a passion for those far from Christ--I want both.

Back to balance

The first chapter of Acts closes with the disciples sequestered for days praying and waiting. Jesus kept talking about the Holy Spirit coming next. They weren't sure what that meant exactly, but there was no mistaking the power when He arrived. The rest of the book is replete with rock-solid, wrath-propitiating, substitutionary-atoning, life-giving, grace-filled, Kingdom-centered, culturally relevant, Gospel preaching. You read it from Peter, John, Philip, Stephen and Paul. They began with a deep, fun­damental teaching of the Gospel and went out from there in love for people, preaching and serving in the name of Jesus Christ.

I don't see enough of this type of balance across Evangelicalism. As I move in and out of groups across the spectrum, I see a growing polarization between those who embrace and teach doctrinal orthodoxy and those who are aggressively reaching a lost world.

We desperately need each other and we need to strike the biblical balance of doctri­nal soundness with missional engagement and creative action.

In the next issue of Outreach, I will share some insights from the largest and fastest-growing churches in America. Some will say, "But are they faithful?" Others will say, "But are they missional?" Those are fair questions, but can we also ask, "What can we learn from them?"

Originally published in Outreach Magazine Sept/Oct 2008

I hope we can all agree that theology should always give birth to word and deed, and evangelism make no sense apart from doctrine. To share the gospel is to articulate unchanging truths about God and man. Nevertheless, it is easy to drift into imbalance. For some theology is treated lightly and all serious efforts are poured into methodology. For others evangelism is put on the back burner in order to clearly develop a robust "body of divinity." This all amounts to serious illogical and unbiblical deficiencies in our churches. While God continues to use us in spite of our errors we are not excused from the pressing need to change where necessary.

Passages of Scripture like 1 Peter 2:9 speaks well to both camps. "But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light."

Those who are distracted from the mission because of theology are missing the point entirely. God has created us in Christ to be a people who proclaim his excellencies. This is essentially the dissemination of doctrine; the beautiful, life changing truths about God that, when received by faith, unite sinners to a holy God. It is unfortunately easy to see that some of us are better at knowing doctrine than sowing doctrine. Let me be blunt, amassing a knowledge of God and shelving it instead of sharing it is sin. We are made to distributors of his glory.

On the other side, the same passage of scripture challenges the evangelistically fixated. Eagerness to tell others about God is undermined if our theology is weak. Let me say it this way, you cannot proclaim God's excellencies if you do not know what they are.

I have been saying it for years, and I don't mind saying it again; we need to be both biblically faithful in doctrine and practice, and missiologically sound in our approach to people and cultures.

I believe many of us are in need of repenting of our willful weaknesses in one of those areas. Along the way, we would do well to listen to one another in those areas where we do excel.

I have already posted my first message from the Theology of Christmas series here. The audio is up (see below) and I have included my outlines for all three messages (at the bottom).

First, here is the audio:

The Theology of Christmas:

Incarnation
Kenosis
Glory

The outlines are below. (This will probably be my last post until I am back from family vacation time.)

I have been doing a series of messages at my church that focus on the Theology of Christmas. I have not talked much about donkeys, wise men, and shepherds... though they are important. Instead, my focus has been on what God did in Christ.

You can download here:

The Theology of Christmas: Incarnation
The Theology of Christmas: Kenosis

This week I will preach "The Theology of Christmas: Glory."

Here is the outline of the Incarnation message:

Frank Page, SBC President, surrendered to the inevitable and will be bringing a brief word of exhortation at the Calvinism Confab.

If you have not signed up, you are welcome-- even though none of us are worthy of this great lineup and tremendous value.

Click here-- you know you can't resist.

All conference attendees should arrive on Monday and persevere to the end on Wednesday. We don't want you to quit early.

But, just so you know, no one will be turned away... it is open to all who will register and then follow through with attendance.

A few days ago, I mentioned the upcoming discussion on the Emerging Church. Click here for more info and registration details.

See preface, part 1, and part 2.

Meanings of Missional- part 3

Semantics is the branch of linguistics that concerns meanings of words and their usage. One of the foremost semanticists of literary history is that eminent (but short-lived) philosopher, Humpty-Dumpty, who - while balancing precariously upon a wall - explained semantics to Alice (of Wonderland fame):

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."