I have shared a bit of my journey to healthier living and weight loss here on the blog, so the story of Todd Starnes' transformation and his new book naturally grabs my attention. And I imagine many of my readers would benefit to hear from his as well. Todd Starnes is a best-selling author and network news reporter for Fox News Radio, based in New York City. He is also an evangelical Christian and a member of the Journey Church in Manhattan. Todd is an award-winning journalist, earning one of his profession's highest honors, the Edward R. Murrow Award and the Associated Press Mark Twain Award for Storytelling. His work is heard on more than 750 radio stations around the nation. He also hosts a religion podcast called, "FOX on Faith."
Steve Addison is the Director of Church Resource Ministries (CRM) Australia, and the author of a new book, Movements That Change The World. Steve is called to encourage church planting movements around the world and is therefore a student of the history of movements that spread the gospel. His new book is a look at that history.
I asked Steve a few questions for the blog. It's short and packed with content - sort of like the Gospel of Mark, just without the divine inspiration. :) Steve is in Australia, so with the time difference he wont be able to check out your comments and questions until around 6pm. But he will make it to the blog to interact. So hit him up now and he'll respond later this evening.
Why did you write Movements that Change the World?
A number of reasons. As a church planter I remember hearing Peter Wagner say, "Starting new churches is the most effective form of evangelism under the sun." I thought if that's true, then starting church planting movements could be even more effective.
I dived in to some church history and discovered that God was continually raising up movements for the renewal and expansion of the Christian faith. I learned that those movements are always on the fringes.
I began looking at Jesus as the founder of a missionary/missional movement that now spans the globe. I read Acts and Paul that way, and the lights came on.
You've identified the characteristics of dynamic movements. Tell us about them.
The five characteristics are: white-hot faith, commitment to a cause, contagious relationships, rapid mobilization and adaptive methods.
White-hot faith is the engine room of a dynamic movement. The apostle Paul was not converted by clever arguments but through a powerful encounter with Christ on the Damascus Road. We would not have had the Reformation without Martin Luther's struggle with the question of, "How can a holy God forgive a sinner like me?"
The secret of Jesus' life and ministry was his relationship of loving obedience to the Father and dependence on the power of the Holy Spirit. He drew his disciples into the same relationship and sent them out with no other resources.
A white-hot faith provides the motivation, energy and legitimacy to go change the world.
Next is commitment to a cause. For good or for evil, history is made by people committed to a common purpose. Nothing changes unless people care deeply and are willing take action. Jesus had high expectations of his followers. So high, that some of them walked away.
John Wesley was the founder of the Methodist movement. On one occasion he visited Bristol. When he arrived there were 900 people in the local Society. When he left 143 of them had been removed for various reasons: among them wife-beating, smuggling, and drunkenness. Wesley led a disciplined movement that changed the world.
The third characteristic of movements is contagious relationships. We are all just six handshakes away from everyone on the planet. Ideas, like viruses, spread from person to person and from group to group. In the age of the internet, contagious relationships are still the most important form of communication.
The most responsive people to the gospel are those who have recently seen someone in their world come to faith.
Whenever we see the Christian faith expanding exponentially, it's traveling across networks of preexisting relationships. We tend to focus on building quality relationships with a few. Jesus focused on connecting broadly and then through one responsive person, reaching households and villages. That's how we see the gospel spreading in Acts.
The fourth characteristic is rapid mobilization. Movements don't abolish the clergy, they just ordain everyone for ministry. What did Jesus do? He went after ordinary people and trained them on-the-job. His lecture on the nature of faith was conducted on a sinking boat in the midst of a storm. There was theological content integrated with life and ministry. Jesus grew leaders and released them to go and change the world.
You don't get dramatic expansion of a movement if everyone is a paid professional. If anyone is paid, they are paid to pioneer new fields and mobilize others. Whether they are in New York or New Delhi, that's what missionaries do.
The last characteristic is adaptive methods. The best illustration of an adaptive method I can think of is the game of soccer. Soccer is the world's game played by hundreds of millions and watched by billions. Why? I think it's because you can drop a ball at the feet of a three year old and she can start playing. It may take a lifetime of practice to master the game, but only an instant to begin enjoying it. Try doing that with American or Australian football.
Adaptive methods are simple, flexible and transferable. That's one reason why Jesus taught by telling stories. A good story, like the prodigal son, can be told by anyone to anyone, even across the boundaries of culture and time.
Movements are unchanging when it comes to their core message and beliefs. At the same time they are willing to change everything else to get that message out and get the job done. Unfortunately we have churches that are unwilling to change their methods, but quite happy to change the heart of the gospel. They have the worst of both worlds and the fruit is clear to see.
Where are the current examples of dynamic movements today?
The exciting news is they are mostly in the developing world--Africa, Asia, Latin America. These are also the regions of greatest population growth. Today, over 90% of new Christians will come from these regions. Expect that trend to continue.
In the US I've been encouraged by leaders such as Neil Cole, Bob Roberts, Ralph Moore, Tim Keller, Mark Driscoll, and Jimmy Seibert who emphasize multiplication of disciples, workers and churches rather than just growth. A growing band of leaders are seeing the church as a movement.
The whole missional/emerging discussion has helped unfreeze us all in our understanding of church. If that is combined with a commitment to the Gospel and a passion to multiply disciples it could be quite fruitful.
What are some contemporary examples of adaptive methods?
I think the Alpha program is a good example. The strategies that David Garrison and others have developed to fuel church planting movements around the world is another clear example.
Who do you want to reach with the message of this book?
As I wrote I thought of a number of actual people. A couple leading a home group who have led eighteen people to Christ in the last year, and are wondering if this is the beginning of a new church. I thought of the leader of a large church in Kenya that is growing leaders who plant churches in the suburbs and the slums. I thought of a young woman in China who has come to faith, and is now reaching her friends with the gospel. I thought of a church leader in New York with a vision to reach the cities of the world.
What difference do you hope the book will make?
I want people to discover Jesus as the leader of a movement that changes the world.
Jump into the comments to ask Steve all your questions. He'll show up tonight for the discussion.
Posted on August 14, 2009 at 8:00 AM ~ 14 Comments
John Avant is not just a friend of mine (which is almost enough of an introduction), but he is also the Senior Pastor at First West, and author of Authentic Power and The Passion Promise. His new book, If God Were Real: A Journey Into A Faith That Matters, asks what it might look like if we lived as if our God was actually, you know - real! In pointing out some of the ways we disconnect for the God who is truly there he encourages believers to live life on mission with God. I had the chance to ask John a few questions relating to the book. He's hanging around on the blog today to interact with all of us here. So be sure to jump into the comments and hit John up with your questions.
What does the title "If God Were Real" mean and what inspired the title?
I have become increasingly concerned over the last several years that most Christians and most churches have actually stopped believing in God! Think about the audacious things we say we believe: God becoming a baby, the Creator's rebellious creation creates an instrument of death on which the Creator dies and yet won't stay dead. The gospel is revolutionary! So why do we live such timid, unchanged lives? Seems to me we may be practical atheists. I wanted to explore with the readers what it might be like if we actually lived like we believe what we say we do.
I also wrote this in the hopes that atheists and seekers, some of whom are friends, would take a look at God from a different perspective and without the "battle mode" Christians and atheists are normally in. After all if atheists don't believe in God and we live like we don't, we may have more in common than we thought!
You say that you have given up on Christianity and so should everyone else. What do you mean by that?
The word "Christian" is a good word - a biblical word. When you add "ity" to it you get something I don't see in the New Testament. I think this has become our problem. In the first century there was a Jesus Movement that changed the world. In the western world today there are lots of Jesus monuments that don't change much of anything.
I am not giving up on the church. I don't think we have actually tried being the church very often yet! I am sure not giving up on the Scriptures. I believe them to be the very Word of God. So some have asked what does it practically mean then to give up on Christianity. 3 things for me: I have given up on the Christianity that has become defined by institutions, opposition, and isolation. I have given up on any institution that is not visibly a part of a Jesus movement. I have given up on the thought that if we just oppose enough evil people, we will usher in the kingdom. I have given up on the isolation that has resulted in most churches becoming religious clubs for its members, divorcing us from the very mission in the world to which Jesus called us.
You talk a lot about "transformation." What should that look like in the Church and what does it look like in yours?
As evangelicals when we read the Bible we get very excited about the Philippian jailer getting saved. But we forget that Philippi itself was transformed! Think of how much of the New Testament is about what God was doing in the cities of their day. I am as committed as ever to the salvation of every soul. But it bothers me that even in the case of many of our largest churches, there is not a lot of evidence that the community around them is being transformed.
I have only been at my church, First West in West Monroe, La for a few years but I believe we are going to be a lab for what it would look like if the churches of a community lived together like God is real. We already have over 100 churches committed to the same vision: "to see the spiritual, cultural and physical transformation of our community so visible it can't be missed." We are working together with city leaders, business leaders, education leaders, and churches to bring the transformative power of the Gospel into the real issues of our community. I could write forever about this. We are committed together to break down barriers that have divided us and see with our eyes what a city can become. We are changing the metrics of the way we measure success as a church to reflect this vision. If we have more butts in the seats but more drugs on the streets we have failed.
I don't know. I think one of the mistakes of many of those who love and pray for revival has been to expect God to do what He has done before. He is a Creator, thus unlikely to repeat Himself. The Great Awakenings brought so much change that many traditional Christians rejected them. If we want revival we better begin to pray for God to change everything. Normally we just want Him to change things back to the way we were most comfortable with. I do believe that revival always requires a movement of prayer. At our church we have determined to meet and pray like we believe in God. We call our prayer service "Destiny." I told our people that we were going to ask God to do more than we could imagine and if he didn't we could all become atheists and play a lot more golf! That may sound presumptuous but since God told us in Ephesians 3:20 that He would do that, we have decided to believe Him! And we are seeing Him do things we have never dreamed of! I long to see the next Great Awakening. What happened in Brownwood, Texas in 1995and 1996 changed me forever - and continues to bear fruit all over the world.
My guess would be that if God moves powerfully in our day it will be in the marketplace and schools, likely among young people and young adults, and very possibly apart from most of our established churches.
You address both believers and unbelievers in this book. So what impact do you hope the book has on believers and unbelievers?
I hope unbelievers would hear me as a friend, or at least a potential friend, and consider if they have rejected the wrong God - the God of hatred, anger, isolation and institutionalism that they think we want them to believe in. I am an atheist too when it comes to that God!
I hope believers will revolt against what we have made of Christianity and move together into the awesome, passionate, scary-but-worth-it journey of living like God is real. That's my hope!
Hit John with your questions in the comments. And don't bother with those softball questions. :)
Posted on August 3, 2009 at 11:21 AM ~ 21 Comments
Between Two Worlds includes quotes from my time on the radio yesterday. The full details are here.
Robbie Sagers wrote:
Why do so many people say that they like Jesus, but not the church? And how can Christians go about changing that perception?
Dan Kimball, Kevin DeYoung, and Ed Stetzer joined guest-host Russell Moore yesterday on the Albert Mohler Program to talk about how unbelievers view the church, and how the people of Christ can reach lost men and women--those at the coffee shop, or sitting next to you on the bus, or those working in the cubicle adjacent to yours right now--with the only gospel that saves.
DeYoung and Kimball are both quoted. Dan and I have been friends for years and I appreciate his perspective. Kevin and I have not yet met, but we are speaking together and a forthcoming Reformed Church in American "classis" in Grand Rapids, so I look forward to meeting him. I have enjoyed his writings.
Robbie quotes my comments about authenticity here:
I think that authenticity is basically a simultaneous admission that I'm imperfect, in need of the work of Christ and the cross, but at the same time sharing that struggle in that journey along the way... I think that authenticity is built from pastors and leaders, but also from everyday people who say, 'Here's what Christ has done, how he's changed me, how the gospel shapes me, but I'm also the one who's filled with faults and failures--struggling, but trusting in the power of Christ.
You can listen to the whole program at the Albert Mohler show radio show site. Who knew that Russ Moore would have such a smooth radio voice?
And, in another post, Robbie also quoted me bringing some stats:
We asked a total of 1,000 twenty-something unchurched people; 900 American, 100 Canadian. And we compared them to a sample of 500 older unchurched (30 or above). ... And what we found is that yes, there are negative views of the church, two-thirds saying the church is full of hypocrites, people who do one thing and say another. But there was also great openness that's there. One of the questions that we asked them to agree or disagree with was: "I would be willing to study the Bible if a friend asked me to?" Among twenty-somethings, 61-percent said, "Yes." Among their older counterparts of 30 and above, 42-percent said, "Yes." That was a statistically significant difference saying there is something going on, there is an openness that's there. So we're seeing that as an opportunity that in the midst of some negative views of the church there is also some openness to the things of God.
Jared Wilson is a pastor, writer and blogger whose first book Your Jesus is Too Safe, was just released from Kregel. As the subtitle says the book aims to help us outgrowing "a drive-thru, feel-good savior."
I was glad to write the foreword for the book, and recently had the chance to ask Jared a few questions about the book. Read the interview and jump into the comments below. Jared will be around today answering questions on the blog.
Ed Stetzer: There's inspirational stuff in the book, some devotional stuff, some academic stuff, some apologetics stuff, some discipleship type stuff, lots of humor and sarcasm, and lots of gospel. Who is Your Jesus is Too Safe for? Who's your intended reader?
JW: It's for people who need to hear about Jesus and the gospel, which I think is everyone, Christian and non. But I know you're not supposed to market a book that broadly.
The book does assume a certain working level of Christianity, and it does sort of assume that the reader is interested in deepening his or her understanding of what Jesus said and did. It assumes the reader has "a Jesus" that may or may not need clarifying.
And, yeah, given the pop cultural references, the humorous footnotes and the sarcasm and what-not, it is probably most in the language of Christians 18-40 or so.
ES: You cite N.T. Wright and John Piper pretty much equally. There has obviously been tension there. Fill us in.
JW: I know, I know. I'm supposed to pick a team.
And honestly, if I'm picking a team for the atonement wars, I'm probably with Piper. I talk about that a bit in the book, but I am a fan of a symphonic view of the different biblical emphases on the atonement with penal substitution as sort of the sharp, leading edge of gospel understanding and proclamation.
I love both men and their work. They are the two most formative influences on my understanding of Jesus. And the book is sort of a literary mashup of Wright's (and others') historical Jesus scholarship and Piper's (and others') passionate proclamation of the glories of Christ.
ES: I know Element bills itself a missional community, and I know you've blogged extensively on the missional church. How does the book fit in or apply to the missional conversation? Or does it?
JW: I think it's human nature to favor one extreme over another. We like life on the pendulum. So in the missional church movement, if we can call it that, we find big bold preachers of Jesus' awesomeness who are very little action and we find folks who are big on action but downplay gospel proclamation. (And there's great folks who do both.) This isn't new and it isn't limited to missional Christianity. It's fundamentalist reductionism versus social gospel all over again.
I think what the book could do - and I don't talk about the missional church in the book; it's just not in the book's view - is push us to ponder if maybe we have a Preacher Jesus on one hand or a Activist Jesus on the other, and the corrective is not to trade one for the other but to look at who Jesus was and what he did. He preached and taught that the kingdom revolved around himself, and he healed, fed, clothed, raised, exorcised, etc. as if that were true. The closer we get to the biblical Jesus, the better our missiology and ecclesiology will be. I think that's a fairly obvious point nobody really needs me to point out. But the book, I hope, will help people get closer to the biblical Jesus.
ES: You survey quite a few false Jesuses from contemporary culture in the Introduction--Grammy Award Speech Jesus, Hippie Jesus, ATM Jesus, etc. Which one do you think is most prevalent in the church right now? And what is the book's response to it?
JW: I don't have the research resources that you do, so I can't put a figure on this, but I can tell you that my biggest concern is actually about an Invisible Jesus. Jesus, the Best Supporting Actor. Cameo Appearance Jesus. The "Pay No Attention to the Man Behind the Curtain" Jesus.
In way too many churches - just one would be too many, but I know this is a larger problem than that because I have experienced it myself and I hear from many others across the country who have as well - Jesus barely or rarely shows up. He may make an appearance in an illustration or something, but he is not the point of the message. Sometimes his name is never mentioned. Perusing church websites or pastor's blogs or Twitter feeds, they hardly ever mention him.
It's bizarre. It's distressing. But it makes sense given the current state of evangelicalism.
ES: Run with that and explain your title. How is evangelicalism's Jesus is too safe?
JW: It's this weird thing we do -- that we've got to wake up to - where Jesus cares about the exact same things we do, Jesus wants the same things we do, Jesus gives his stamp of approval on all our hopes and dreams. Who was it that said "God made man in his own image and ever since man has tried to return the favor"?
Our Jesus is too safe when it turns out he likes and dislikes the same people and things we do. For our church culture, it's things like success at work, prospering in our finances, achieving our dreams, etc. But every time I read the Sermon on the Mount, for instance, I am immediately comforted and challenged at the same time. It totally freaks me out. If Jesus in the Gospels doesn't challenge your idols, your worship of them is more entrenched than you realize.
My friend Ray Ortlund says making Jesus the chaplain of the American dream is blasphemous. I think he's touched on the prevailing sin of Western evangelical culture.
ES: What's the takeaway? What one idea or thought do you want to resonate with people when they close the book at the end of their reading?
JW: Well, I hope we don't make it sound as if the book is constantly critical, constantly corrective. Michael Spencer did me a favor in pointing that out in his review, when he says the title sort of belies the real thrust of the book. I sort of set up the problems with some critical surveys in the Introduction, just as you sort of do in the Foreword, but the text of the book is overwhelmingly pro-Christ, not anti- anything. There are corrections as necessary and plenty of arguments for certain things, but the book is more "for" Jesus than it is "against" anything else. I think anyone who's read it can testify to that.
But the takeaway I hope it offers is what I like to call the all-surpassing awesomeness of Jesus.
If it renews or deepens or even just helps someone's relationship with the risen Lord, I'm happy.
Jared will be around to interact with us right here on the blog. So jump into the comments if you have any questions or issues you want to discuss.
I sat down with Darrin Patrick, Lead Pastor of The Journey in St. Louis, to be interviewed concerning church, ministry, younger generations, and the future. Check it out below and join the conversation in the comments.
Tullian Tchividjian's new book, Unfashionable boldly addresses the issue of what it means to be the church in the world, while refusing to be of it. This is a theologically driven book that calls the church to "contextualize without compromise." Tullian's is a voice of reasoned, biblical sanity when many who are having this discussion are talking past one another with unhelpful and exaggerated rhetoric. I spoke with Tullian recently and asked him to talk to us about this new book.
I recently was in Rome, Italy and Marseille, France connecting pastors in the states with church plant opportunities in Europe. I was there with The Upstream Collective and the International Mission Board.
Daniel Ott was part of our team. Daniel is on staff of Southland Community Church, an independent Christan church in Lexington, KY.
This week I'm teaching a D. Min. class, "Practical and Strategic Issues in Missions, Evangelism and Church Growth" at Southeastern Seminary, and later this week Advance 09 is going down. So, while my attention is very much focused on the people and events surrounding me I have not forgetten that you - my thoughtful and patient readers - are waiting for the last part of my interview with Andy Stanley to drop. Well, here it is!
We pick up where we left off, talking about Andy's thoughts on preaching and his approach of preaching one-point messages and how he brings the listener to the Biblical text. We also talk a bit about is views of verse-by-verse preaching and how to help people see why the scriptures matter.
Feel free to interact in the comments. Also, many of you have mentioned how helpful Andy's and Lane Jones book, Communicating for Change, has been. I told Andy that our last interview made his book an Amazon best-seller for a week. ;-) Let me encourage you to get it and learn why Andy is such an effective communicator.
Ed: I recently interviewed Craig Groeschel and he made a point that younger adults seem to want to go deeper than the boomers did... Have you noticed any shift? You've been at this for a long time at North Point (and before). Have you noticed any shift in the way that believers and the unchurched have responded to preaching?
Andy: I would agree with Craig only because I keep hearing people I respect say that. But I can't draw from any personal experience to say, if you mean by "deeper," that people have a longing for "keep me in the book of Romans for four months." I think that is an expression, but I do think there's a spiritual hunger. I think there is a wonderful hunger for the Scriptures, especially the gospels right now... Generation to generation switches from Paul to Jesus, Paul to Jesus, Paul to Jesus, and if you've been around long enough, you see that it goes back and forth. But, I think there's a huge hunger for Scripture and what does the Bible say, and for people who do what we do, that's a great thing.
Ed: One of the points that you have made is the need to help the audience, the listener, the people to see why this scripture "matters." Why is that so important? How do you do it to help people to see this matters?
Andy: I think the best way to understand that is to think about a father with his or a mother with her children. There are things as a parent that I know are extremely important for my kids to know. The problem is my kids don't know they're extremely important for my kids to know. So, for my kids to take my advice or instruction seriously, I have to do a little pre-work to help them understand the gravity of what I'm about to say. Well, the same is true when we open the Scripture with new believers, nonbelievers, or people who have been a Christian a long time, but you're about to present them with something you think, "this is a must have," a "must-understand" truth. But if we don't help people understand why it's so important before we lay it out, it just becomes more information.
As a parent, I have to do that when I really want my kids to embrace the truth or embrace an idea. The new craze right now among teenagers is texting, and so the other day I have a conversation with my two boys about texting inappropriate pictures and all that sort of stuff. Well, as I began the conversation, I began by talking about what's happening to kids who are caught. It's messing up their lives and being associated with this follows them for the rest of their life. So, I began with that before I talked to them about, have they heard of this or are kids doing this. So, again, I had to create some emotion around the topic. It would have, it's almost a waste of time to say, "Hey kids, don't do that. The end."
Well, I think with preaching, as we approach the platform or as we open God's Word, I want people to be hungry for what I'm about to say. The emotion we create at the beginning of a message causes people to "lean in" and causes people to want to take seriously what we're about to say. So, when I sit through a message or listen to a message where it's, "Hey, last week we ended at Romans 4:8. Today we pick up at verse nine," and they just jump in, I'm like, "Wait, wait, wait, wait. Make me want this."
Now, as a mature believer, I want it because it's in the Bible, but I'm kind of glad I didn't bring my three unchurched friends because you haven't made them want this. Simply saying it's in the Bible isn't enough.
It depends a little bit on the audience, but I think for all of us, we need to look at our audience like we're shepherds or we're parents and they're children, and there's all these biblical metaphors, and so consequently, to be good stewards of their time, to be good stewards of their spiritual life, I think we need to do the difficult task and the difficult work of creating some desire or some appetite for what we're about to say.
Ed: I wrote an article on this topic in Preaching Magazine called "Contextual Preaching." I basically encouraged people to begin the message in a way that connects with your audience. Some objected to it. Some said, "Well, you just need to trust the Holy Spirit." I believe I trust the Holy Spirit. But I think there's a sense that some people think, "Well, we don't need to even worry about those things."
Andy: Well, they just need to read the parables. Why would Jesus bother telling a story? He shoulda' just told 'em the truth. Why spend all the time talking about a son and his father. The son runs off. Why don't you just say, "Look, God's the Father and God will take you back if you run off." Let's move on.
I think this is one of the reasons there was some kind of semi-controversy around our conversation last time, I made the point that verse-by-verse preaching is kind of cheating. And my point was, from my perspective, it's easier to do that than to do what I do and what people who do what I do in terms of spending lots of time trying to create a context for Biblical truth. And I didn't mean, obviously, cheating like they were doing something wrong. What I really meant to say was I think it's easier. And honestly, as I work through books of the Bible in my private devotional life, there are so many times, Ed, I think, "Gosh, I wish I could just go in next Sunday and say, 'Okay, here's what I read this week and here's what I got out of it.'" It would just be so much easier and so much simpler, but then I think, you know what? For people who are where I am, for people who just can't get enough of God's Word, that would work, but for the audience I'm trying to reach, I'm going to have to create some sorta creative environment... I'm going to have to create a hunger. And that's difficult. That just takes a lot of time.
Ed: There are people out there who are convictional verse-by-verse preachers. I preach that way a majority of the time. Let's say we're going work through a text. As you said earlier, we're going to stop at Romans 4:8 and then go to Romans 4:9. How can we help when we begin that conversation at Romans 4:9 for people to engage and to see this as important? Just go up and say, "The Bible says it. Let's go." Or is there something more we can and should do?
Andy: Well, I think the good news there is there are many who teach who do a great job at what you're suggesting, and that is: the introduction is everything. The introduction is designed to make me want to listen to what you're about to say. So, the question is always: what can I say up front to make my audience interested or more interested in what I'm about to say?
There's a group of people that as soon as you open the Bible, they're interested. But there's a group of people that as soon as you open the Bible, they're going to suspect anything you say. So, I think it's looking within culture; trying to unearth the tension. That's something I talk a lot about in the book. What is the tension that this text addresses? And the more tension I can create up front, the more interested people are going be in what I have to say. That's just true of general conversation. This is why anybody who listens to the news or listens to the radio or television, what are those news readers do right before they sign off for a commercial? They say, "In a minute we're going to find out why blah, blah, blah, blah, blah," and you go, "Gosh, well, I need to stay on this station 'til they come back." Well, they've just created interest in what they are about to say.
I think good communicators do that intuitively and I think as communicators of God's Word, it's to our advantage to create that kind of interest. I think a person who's preaching chapter-by-chapter through the Bible can do that. I think it's a little more challenging because, obviously, God didn't ordain the chapters and the verses. That was added later, but we find ourselves locked into that.
Ed: Who do you listen, other communicators, preachers, teachers out there, and how do they influence you?
Andy: The group I listen to the most, we have probably 12 communicators at our three campuses here in Atlanta combined with our pastoral staff and our student communicators, and I listen to just about everything they do primarily because I feel like I need to be in a coaching role. So, that takes a lot of my listening time, which I enjoy. I listen to Craig; I listen to Perry Noble; I listen to Ed Young; I listen to Joel Osteen. I think there's so much we can learn as communicators from Joel, and, obviously, he gets criticized a lot for a lot of things, but you don't learn anything if you put on your critique hat. You have to become a student before you're a critic. So, I listen to Joel. I listen to my dad, for various reasons, but those are probably the people that I am more intentional about tuning into the most.
Ed: What advice would you give to communicators, preachers of all different kinds about how they might effectively communicate God's Word to their congregations?
Andy: I think we have to create in our schedules the time we need to study.. The more talented the person is, obviously, the more tendency they're going to have to wing it or to just lean hard on their personality or their ability just to be interesting. I think we just have to study. It's difficult. I mean, for me, the better somebody is, that means the easier they make it look, and so the tendency is to think, "Well, they don't spend a lot of time. That just seemed so easy to them." But, when you watch a professional tennis player, you think, "Gosh, I can get out there and just whack the ball over the net like that." Well, the reason they make it look so easy is because they work so hard at it.
I just think a big part of this is just making sure in our schedules we have carved out our best time to do our best work to prepare for our most important jobs which is to open God's Word and say, "Here's what God has said. Here's what we've gotta do. Here's what we need to know." So, I think a lot of this just goes back to every individual communicator finding their sweet spot in terms of studying, preparation, and being prepared for Sunday or Wednesday or Tuesday or whenever it is that they have the opportunity to stand up in front of their audience.
Thanks, Andy, for taking the time and sharing your insights!
Feel free to interact in the comments. For those of you who are verse-by-verse preachers by conviction, how do you help people engaged the text as you start you message? Do you just assume that, or do you (as Andy suggests) seek to create tension. If so, how?
For those of you who preach topically, how to you make certain that you are preaching the scripture and not just your opinions with the Bible as spiritual footnotes?
First, I interview Luigi who talks about the church he is a part of in Venice. It is a fascinating story of an indigenous believer now serving as an elder at his church. Second, is Scott. Scott is the real deal-- a church planter with a heart for the people to whom God has called him. I was told that less that 10% of missionaries return to France after 1 five year term. Scott is coming up on his third term. He has my respect and you should give him a moment of your time.
Luigi in Rome, Italy
Luigi, like many in Italy, grew up Catholic, but was later led to Christ through the ministry of an American missionary. After a year of hearing the gospel, and then attending worship he says he could see the difference between the religion he grew up with and the gospel and was converted. He is now an elder, leading worship and preaching at Christian Bible Church (it sounds much cooler in Italian). He stays connected to the community through his fulll time work in the electronics business.
Luigi talks about the religious culture in Rome (people are Catholic, but typically do not attend church but 2-3 times a year) and explains why the church of Jesus Christ in Italy needs partnership from their brothers and sisters in the States.
Scott in Marseille, France
Here I talk with Scott at the Notre-Dame de la Garde about gospel ministry in the post-Catholic city of Marseille. Here there is a very small Evangelical presence and a growing Muslim population in the midst of a very secular culture. Scott shares some of the difficulties of missionaries coming into this area, and explains that the key is relationships and time. He also talks about how North American Christians and churches can get involved.
Back in March I posted a multi-part interview with Andy Stanley that focused on communication. That exchange generated a lot of conversation. Some of you helped to make the conversation profitable, and a few of you... well, not so much. Well, just after this past Easter I spoke with Andy again, this time for an interview to talk more about the issues of preaching and communication. Here is that conversation in two parts. I look forward to healthy, charitable dialog in the comments.
Ed:I had the privilege a few months ago to be visiting there at the church which kind of prompted me to begin this blog series... When you're preaching and when you're communicating, what is the goal that you have for the listener? What do you want them do, be, act, or change as you communicate with them?
Andy: Well, actually I think the list that you just gave me is the goal and I think it depends on the kind of sermon. And so, I think every communicator needs to step up to wherever he or she's communicating with a specific goal, and sometimes it is "I want them to know something," sometimes it is "I want them to do something," sometimes it is "I want them to change something." So, in 35 or 40 minutes of a lot of words coming out of my mouth, in my mind, there's always a specific goal. This past Sunday for us was Easter and I wanted our congregation to understand something. It wasn't an application sermon. It wasn't even a "here's something you've never thought of before" sermon. It was a "I want you to understand something" But I think that's going to shift with the topic and shift with whatever series a communicator's in. That's a good question.
Ed: You and Layne Jones coauthored the book, Communicating for a Change, and many people have found it very helpful. What do you think are some elements that pastors and communicators who are doing messages, what do they need to bring to the message so that people can experience or be motivated to experience that change?
Andy: I think a big part of it is passion. And I coach our communicators. Every week I'm in some sort of coaching environment with our communicators on staff, and one of the things I say to them frequently is I say, "Look, you've gotta imagine there's a 21-year-old guy that's sittin' two/thirds of the way back and he's givin' church one more shot. What, where in your message is the passion to reach out and grab that guy by the throat and say, 'You can't leave here without hearing or doing or understanding.'" And so, when it comes to change, I think it's one thing to look at our outlines and our, whatever script we have in front of us.
That's one thing, but I think we have to step up there with somebody in mind or a type of person in mind because, for me, that's what I think fuels me to communicate for change or to communicate for a life change or to communicate to understand something that's never been understood before. And in my world - and you've been around me enough to know - every once in a while, I pull my stool out to the front of the stage and just it on it as close to the edge of the stage I can and lean as far as I can into the audience, and that's sorta my visual way of saying, "Okay, look, if you forget everything else you've heard today, you got to know this one thing, you gotta hear this one thing." And I think from the stage, that's the compelling change part. Here's what's gotta change.
Ed:When you communicate, you're known and have really promoted and encouraged people to consider that one-point approach to really make it simple, make it clear, make it compelling. Why is that? Why one-point? Because many of us were taught to have these three points, four points. Why have you narrowed the focus down to one thing?
Andy: You know it's interesting, and I'll answer the question directly, but actually at Dallas Seminary, we studied Haddon Robinson's book on preaching which all of us have been exposed to or was a textbook, and the thing is, Haddon taught us to preach one-point messages. I mean, if you look at biblical preaching or you look at his text, he teaches "What's the one thing?" The problem is: nobody did it. Even when I was in seminary and we were using that book as a textbook, even in class, nobody drove us to, "Hey, what's your one thing?" So, I feel like I'm doing what I was taught to do in seminary because I felt like that was the model. But the thing I think - and I shared this in book - the thing that really turned a page for me was, when I was in seminary, I was invited to teach a chapel for a Christian high school and I had this really amazing message I thought, and that morning when I got, or actually it was the night before, as I was lookin' over my notes, I thought, "You know what? They don't care about any of this." I've got all this stuff and all this content. They're seniors and juniors and sophomores in high school. They have chapel every week. They don't care. And they're not gonna remember any of this. And I just felt compelled to say, "Okay, if they're only gonna remember one thing, which they probably won't remember anything, but if they're gonna remember one thing, what do I want it to be?" And I rewrote my whole message towards that one thing. And that was a defining moment for me in terms of preparation and communication and I've just sorta stuck with it since then.
Ed: How do you keep from just making up statements or points, finding scriptural footnotes to kinda make a predetermined point?
Andy: Well, for me, I really, really, really want the text to speak for itself. And there have been so many times I've gone into my preparation with an idea in mind, come out on the other end with a completely different idea, and I really to the best of my ability, I want the text to speak. And I think once we've done our due diligence in terms of really, really, really doin' our textual work, using the languages, usin' the helps, whatever a man or woman or uses to prepare, I think from that, that' where we ask the question, "Okay, what's the thing the author is tryin' to communicate? What's the thing God was tryin' to illustrate through this story? What's the idea that comes out of this narrative?" So, I really think it's all in the text, but it just takes a long time sometimes to get there. And as I've told our staff and I tell my wife frequently, sometimes it's really not until Saturday night or even sometimes Sunday morning when it finally dawns on me, this is the thing that I've gotta carry with me to the platform today. So, it's hard work, for me anyway.
Ed: Well, like you said, "I want the text to speak for itself." What do you say to people that say, "Well, Andy, if you want the Text to speak for itself, just work through it verse by verse"? What are the advantages and disadvantages of that, and how do you come down there?
Andy: Well, I think anyone who listens, not to a sermon I've preached, but anyone who listens to a bunch of sermons I preach know that I, my favorite thing is to take a passage and to work through a passage word by word, verse by verse. I love to do that. That's what I was trained to do. So, I think on any given Sunday, I preach exegetically. What I don't do is pick up where I left off last week with the very next verse. Now, I've done that through the book of Jonah, done that to the book of Nehemiah, but typically, we're picking a topic, and then I'm picking passages that I think speak to that topic, and then I'm exegeting those passages.
I think preaching verse-by-verse through books of the Bible is a fun thing to do. I love listening to that kind of teaching. That's actually how I do my quiet times. My quiet time is verse by verse, take as long as I need to to work through a book of the Bible and write down insights and observations, but in terms of what happens on a Sunday morning, as I'm lookin' at my audience and as I look at the Text, even the writers of the Text don't give equal weight to everything, and verses, I mean, and these books of the Bible, especially the epistles, were written to be read holistically.
I think when I get to heaven, Paul is gonna say, "Wow, you found a whole lot more in there than I originally said because I meant for somebody to stand up and read the whole book of Ephesians at one time to the local church, and gosh, you spent six weeks pickin' through there." So, I think sometimes, if we're not careful, we miss what the author's trying to say because we spend so much time on three or four sentences that the author said as they made their entire argument. And honestly, I think that's a little dangerous, and I think both of us would agree and everybody listening to your podcast would agree, we have heard preachers and communicators make more of Text than the author originally intended because they decided, "I'm only gonna cover these five verses or these six verses this particular Sunday." And I think we can actually miss the message of the author doing that sometimes.
But I do wanna say, I don't think it's a wrong way to preach or an inadequate way to preach. And obviously, John McArthur and others have made a career and have built very, very mature believers and very strong churches around working through books of the Bible over and over. So there's, it's just a preference thing I guess.
And there seems to be a bit of resurgence of that.
Part 2b will drop later in the week. In the mean time jump into the meta and share your thoughts and practices concerning preaching in ways that connect the truth to the people God has sent you to.
Hello from Rome! They Jet Set Tour keeps us moving, so I am pretty tired and heading to bed, but I wanted to get a video up of part of my interview of Steve Miller, campus pastor at The Journey (Tower Grove campus) in Saint Louis, MO. Steve talks to us about how a church in the States can be involved in church planting and advancing the gospel internationally.
It's been a great trip -- exciting to see all that God is doing here in a place most Americans really do not understand. Stay tuned for more updates from The Jet Set Tour!
I started my first church at 21 years old in the inner-city of Buffalo, NY and fell in love with being on mission. I planted there and in Erie, PA and started reading all I could on ministry and mission. I planted for 10 years, then became a seminary professor, earned a Ph.D., and wrote my first book. Now, I basically do research, write, and speak to pastors and church leaders.
Give us the Big Idea behind Lost and Found.
Lost and Found: The Younger Unchurched and the Churches that Reach Them is a book that shows the younger unchurched people are open spiritually (even more so than their older unchurched counterparts), but are closed to church. However, instead of just telling you that, we looked at churches and ministries that were actually reaching the younger unchurched.
Please identify one of your leadership weaknesses that's been exposed while in ministry.
I fail to take care of myself when I lead others.
How have you closed that leadership gap?
God has recently convicted me of that very thing and I have sought to lead myself into better spiritual, emotional, and physical health.
Don't worry about sounding arrogant or bold, but what are some God-sized dreams He's placed in your heart?
I would like to help evangelical churches across the Western world to take their biblically-driven theology and apply it as they live on mission in their contexts.
I recently had the opportunity to engage the public concerning exclusive truth claims at USA Today. Is there Only One Way? was the topic - one that I obviously am passionate about, and one that many who attend church appear to be confused about. You can read the introduction here, and I am reproducing the article here on my blog. If you want to follow the conversation that followed in nearly 100 comments be sure to go directly to the USA Today site.
Is There Only One Way?
Recently, the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life released a survey regarding the beliefs of Christians and their views on entrance to eternal life (http://religions.pewforum.org/reports/reports_2). The first article released by Pew included these findings:
"Most Americans agree with the statement that many religions - not just their own - can lead to eternal life. Among those who are affiliated with a religious tradition, seven-in-ten say many religions can lead to eternal life. This view is shared by a majority of adherents in nearly all religious traditions, including more than half of members of evangelical Protestant churches (57%)."
I wrote about this issue on my own blog (www.edstetzer.com) in "Are Evangelicals Really Universalists?" as a response to an earlier Pew Research project (http://blogs.lifeway.com/blog/edstetzer/2008/06/are-evangelicals-really-univer.html).
Our team at LifeWay Research (and many others) felt the definition of "religion" might lead, for instance, some Pentecostals to say that Lutherans can find eternal life through their "religion." In other words, some would hear "religion" and think "denomination." (Pew, as a professional organization, always releases the questions they ask and such analysis and questions are normal in our field.)
So I (and it appears many others) contacted the good people at the Pew Forum to share my concerns. They were gracious to listen to my concerns and subsequently re-asked the questions in a follow-up survey with a more closely worded query. In their most recent study (http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=380), I believe they have asked better questions and brought the issue into a sharper focus.
In their new study, Pew research states that 65% of all self-identified Christians believe eternal life can be obtained through a non-Christian belief system. Furthermore, they found that 80% of that group can "cite an example of at least one non-Christian religion that can lead to salvation."
In summary:
Pew Study 1: In the first study, Pew posed the statement, "My religion is the one true faith leading to eternal life, OR Many religions can lead to eternal life," asking respondents to agree with one or the other (or neither), to which 57% of members of evangelical churches agreed with the latter. (from the full report: http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report2-religious-landscape-study-full.pdf)
Pew Study 2: In the follow-up study, Pew still used the word "religions" in its survey questions, but followed-up with clarifying questions for respondents who indicated that many religions can lead to eternal life. They write, "All respondents who say 'many religions' were asked whether Judaism, Islam, and Hinduism can lead to eternal life . . . In total, therefore, each respondent had the opportunity to name up to four non-Christian faiths." They then found that 80% of self-identified Christians who agreed that many religions can lead to eternal life actually cited at least one non-Christian religion that leads to salvation.
The refinement between the two studies is helpful. With the clarifications and follow-ups added to the "many religions" language of the survey, we can be more certain that Christian respondents were not comparing apples to a different brand of apples, so to speak. By actually citing non-Christian religions that they believe can lead to salvation, Pew has done well to remove the concern that "religions" could be misconstrued by Christians as including other Christian denominations.
Theologians call people with such views universalists or pluralists.
Universalism is a term with a wide meaning, so let me define it as the belief that there are multiple means, ways, and methods to gaining an eternal reward or salvation from the divine being after death. (Some argue a difference between universalism and pluralism, but they overlap in many ways and most news stories used the term "universalism.")
Only one group from the Pew research fell into a majority view when it came to the issue that eternal life can only be obtained through faith in Jesus Christ--white evangelicals at 64%. All other groupings and evangelicals as a whole were shown to believe that actions are necessary to obtain eternal life.
The Pew article said, "The poll also finds that roughly one-third of Americans (30%) believe that whether one achieves eternal life is determined by what a person believes, with nearly as many (29%) saying eternal life depends on one's actions."
Looking at this (and other) data tells us a few things: Americans are very universalistic, self-identified Christians are mostly universalistic, evangelicals are somewhat universalistic. (Those who report evangelical beliefs are slightly universalistic and I will address that later.)
To further the discussion, let's talk about the core issues of exclusivity of beliefs and how that affects culture, religion, and human interaction.
How do you view those who hold such exclusive beliefs? Why do you think that people increasingly seem to hold universalistic and pluralistic beliefs?
Let's make it personal, as well: Many faiths believe there is only one way to God, heaven, righteousness, etc. If you are a person of faith, does your faith teach that? If so, why does it matter?
In his new book, The Divine Commodity, Skye Jethani challenges the church to make disciples of Jesus Christ who live above the culture of consumerism. This means we need to not only recognize the problem of consumerism (in the world and in the church), and change our behavior, it means we must develop a counter-cultural worldview that is deeply rooted in Scripture. I asked Sky a few questions related to the book, read the interview and ask Skye relevant questions in the comments. He'll be on the blog today to interact the the readers.
You're book critiques consumer Christianity but you doing so by selling a Christian book. How do you reconcile that?
My wife asked me this repeatedly while I was in the process of writing it, and it's something I hear frequently. "Aren't you being a hypocrite?" (If I had a dime....) I think the key is to understand the difference between consumption and consumerism. Consumption is a behavior that we must engage to survive. We must consumer food, water, air, and other resources. And many of us consume books, media, websites, etc. The Divine Commodity is not a critique of consumption (a behavior), but consumerism (a worldview). Consumerism is a way of viewing yourself and the world, and I believe it stands it opposition to the worldview taught by Christ. Consumerism places the consumer at the center of the cosmos, and affirms that the goal of life is to satisfy one's unmet desires, and avoid discomfort, by consuming goods, experiences, and other people. When this gets applied to Christian faith it warps our understanding of self, mission, church, worship, community, and even God.
You state that the church today lacks imagination. What does that mean?
Working for Leadership Journal, I've gotten around to a lot of churches and ministry conferences. Everyone seems to agree that the church in North America is struggling, and the explanations tend to fall into two categories--church leaders are told they either lack the right resources or they lack motivation. I disagree. We are the most resourced Christians that have ever lived (nearly $7 billion a year in Christian books and merchandise alone), and I don't believe the men and women I know in ministry are lazy. They care deeply about Christ's church and his mission. (Sadly many of these ministry conferences are driving sales of new resources or burdening pastors with shame and guilt, but failing to turn the tide of decline in the American church.)
I think our true deficit is imagination. We've embraced the mission of Christ, but we simply cannot wrap our minds around how to do what Jesus envisions. Without having "the mind of Christ" but desiring to be faithful to his command to "go and make disciples," we reinterpret the mission through the only lens that makes sense to us--the one we've inherited from our consumer culture. This explains why our churches are run like corporations, our worship has become entertainment, and why Christianity has become more of a brand than a counter-cultural calling. What we need are imaginations illuminated by God's Spirit to see a new way. That's what my book seeks to unveil by prescribing spiritual disciplines of re-formation and new ways of thinking about faith, church, mission, and God.
Explain the title. How has God become a commodity?
A commodity is something that is not valued for what it is, but for what it may be exchanged for. A subsistence farmer values rice because of its inherent rice-ness; because his family eats it to survive. But once he grows more than enough rice for survival, it becomes a commodity. He doesn't value the surplus rice because it's rice, but because it may be exchanged for something else--tools, clothing, etc.
So it is with God. Those holding a consumer world view see everything as a commodity--assigning value based not on a thing or person's inherent identity, but their usefulness to the consumer. In Consumer Christianity God has not inherent value apart from what he can do for me. As one sociologist studying American faith has put it, our God isn't the one revealed in Scripture--almighty and holy--but a consumer deity part divine butler and part cosmic therapist. Unfortunately many churches are failing to deconstruct this warped understanding of God, and in their attempts to attract religious consumers they may actually be reinforcing the idea that the individual, not God, is the center of the universe.
The art and story of Vincent van Gogh runs throughout the book. What connection does he have to modern consumerism?
In truth van Gogh has no direct connection to modern consumerism, but he plays a critical function in my book. Few people know that van Gogh was a devout Christian who studied to be a pastor and served as a missionary. But he later had a significant falling out with the institutional church. Still, his faith endured and is reflected in many of his paintings. His story of wrestling with faith and a culturally-captivated form of Christianity parallels my struggle and the struggle I've heard from many of my peers.
In addition, van Gogh's art--apart from being stirringly beautiful--is also a window into our imaginations. He expresses biblical truths in a form beyond the didactic. I really consider him a prophet-painter. His paintings help take the reader into the realm of imagination that I believe is so lacking in our churches today.
What is something church leaders can do right away to begin combating the influence of consumerism in their churches?
I think we can start returning the prophetic voice to the pulpit. Consumerism has banished many of these leader to the wilderness--or the ivory tower of academia--where few can hear their call to repentance, surrender, and renewal. They make us too uncomfortable, and when attracting a large crowd is the definition of a successful ministry, those pastors with prophetic inklings are never going to make the cut.
That being said, there is hope. I believe a lot of folks--particularly the younger generation of evangelicals--are longing for preaching that moves beyond the positive. They recognize that sometimes the only way to reach the positive is by traversing the negative--that the only way to new life is through the cross. I believe preaching, at its best, should inspire. It should pull away the curtain of shadow and darkness that covers our eyes so that we can behold a vision of the beauty of Christ and his kingdom. This requires two things. First, it means naming the lies and distortions (the dark curtain) that veil our sight. Second, it requires the illumination of that which is right and true and beautiful about God.
I am convinced that the most opaque curtain in North America blocking our view of God is consumerism. Therefore, it is our responsibility as preachers to name this darkness, show how it is warping our view, and pull it back from the eyes of our people. But critiquing the darkness is never enough. Once the curtain is removed, we must shine the light and illuminate a flaming vision of life with Christ in his kingdom. This is the inspiring sight that should fill our people and lift them to new heights. We must help them see the treasure in the field for which they would sell all they have to buy. This is what I hope to accomplish, with God's help, whenever I ascend to the pulpit, and it is why I was compelled to write The Divine Commodity.
Trevin Wax recently interviewed me for his blog, Kingdom People. We talked about our new book, Lost and Found, and the issues facing our churches and the unchurched younger generations. Here's how it went down.
Trevin Wax:Did you encounter any surprises as you sifted through the data as you were researching this book?
Ed Stetzer: Yes. Not only did we see some surprises, but also we actually were really encouraged by these findings. It would have been unfortunate had the younger unchurched expressed interest in things that we simply couldn't offer.
The newest issue of Biola Magazine is about "The Church in the Missional Age." I was interviewed for this issue and thought I'd share some of that conversation here. Be sure to read the whole thing at the Biola Magazine website, then come back here to discuss.
BM: Ed, would you say that the average Christian has an understanding of the term "missional"? Or is it still an "insider term" among church leaders and theologians?
ES: I would say the term has started to gain wide acceptance since the turn of the millennium among Christian leaders, however I don't think it has gotten down to the rank-and-file level. I've written a book, Compelled by Love, which is trying to be a lay-level explanation of missional, and other authors are trying to do the same. But yeah, primarily it's still a pastor's or theologian's word.
BM: My sense is that there is widespread confusion about the word, even among the pastors and theologians. Is the word useful? Is it too confusing for its own good?
ES: Well, it certainly has become the descriptor du jour. I think the problem is that people tend to see in missional what they want to see. If they want to see the church do more social justice, that's "missional." If they want to be more evangelistic, that's "missional." But I still think there's a power in a new or modified word that enables us to say, "We do need something different." I think missional has become a descriptor -- an imperfect one -- of the shift we might need in evangelicalism.
...
BM: Why is the missional movement happening now? What brought it on?
ES: Recently the New York Times quoted me referring to the "modern evangelical machine." And I think there's some discomfort with the modern evangelical machine that has produced a catered, franchise, packaged Christianity that is pretty neat and freeze-dried. I think people are looking for something that is more transformational, more organic, and missional has become that which people rally to. There are other people using other words -- like "externally focused" -- which are describing similar ideas. So the question is: Does the word "missional" have enough redefining influence to help us think more biblically about the church, or will the word become a distraction? As of yet, I don't think it has become more problematic than it is helpful. I think it's still helpful.
...
BM: So the core purpose and idea of mission is good, but there have been some unintended consequences?
ES: I think every movement has unintended consequences. The unintended consequence of the church-growth movement was that we taught churches how to meet consumers' needs, and perhaps an unintended consequence of the missional movement will be that we will deemphasize some things we need to emphasize, like sharing Christ and biblical orthodoxy and things like that. And I want to learn from both.
BM: What would you say are the good, positive contributions that you've already seen coming out of this missional movement?
ES: I think a move away from preference, from church being defined by the preferences of its attendees to church being more focused on how we can be a sign and instrument of the kingdom of God in this community. So I think it's a little less self-focused, which is positive. I think its forced people to think about what is the source of our mission, and that mission is an attribute of God himself. It's helped people to see their lives as part of redemptive history, on the move, as sent ones and sent churches. I think the rediscovery that the Jesus of Luke 19:10 -- who said "I come to seek and save the lost" -- is the same Jesus as in Luke 4 -- who came to pronounce freedom for the captives, sight for the blind, and caring for the poor -- is also a positive contribution.
...
BM: Is "missional" necessarily anti-megachurch? Can you be a megachurch and also be missional?
ES: Depends on who you ask! I think it's harder to be missional if you're a megachurch, because the machine has to be serviced. I preach every week to a church with 9,000 members, so obviously I'm not anti-megachurch. But I like to think that the church functions like a yo-yo. There are two functions at work: sending itself out, like the centrifugal force, but also the force pulling us in, which is the organization that needs to be maintained. When you spin a yo-yo, the centripetal force pulling it in and the centrifugal force pushing it out are in equal balance. But I think the more your church has, the more you have to service it, the thicker the tether. I think many megachurches spend all their time servicing the tether and not sending it out on mission. If you have 10 people in your living room, all you have to worry about is the centrifugal, but if you have a megachurch you have to worry about the centripetal as well. So I think its harder as a megachurch.
BM: One of the criticisms about missional that Dan Kimball, among others, has pointed out recently is that there have not been new converts in the missional church. Do you think this is a concern?
ES: I do think that a church should not defend their lack of converts, but rather repent of it and resolve to change. I think that some missional churches want to defend it. I do think that conversion takes longer these days. People don't really know what "getting saved" means anymore. In a secular society, missional engagement and conversion are going to take longer, but at the end of the day, if all we have is reform but no one getting born again, then I don't think that's a better situation than what we have right now.
BM: I think another criticism that has been raised is just this balance that missional tries to strike between social justice and "living out" the gospel on one hand and the proclaiming or preaching of the gospel on the other. And you even talked about this at your talk at the American Society for Church Growth conference here at Biola. How do we balance these things?
ES: I think, ultimately, if I push on two fronts -- A and B -- and I only get resistance on B, then I've got to push harder on B. Now, from my perspective I might think they are equally important, but we have to remember this: When you speak of justice, people will praise you, but when you speak of Jesus, they'll condemn you. But we can't speak of Jesus without speaking of justice and we can't biblically speak of justice without understanding Jesus, so ultimately we will have to overcompensate in the area of evangelism because that's where there is resistance.
...
BM: Do you think the missional movement might bridge the gap and divisions between, for example, the "emerging" people and the neo-Reformed crowd?
ES: Well, I don't know if it will be the great unifier, but I think we can all agree on missional -- that we need to be focused on the mission of God, not on us. I speak to a lot of pastors about missional, from Assemblies of God to Reformed, and I think that all of them more or less get it, and get why it is important.
Go and check out the whole interview (there's quite a bit more), and come back to talk about these issues. What are your thoughts?
Since I did not want to post "on top" of this "Convergent Church" interview, I posted a clarificationbelow from Rick Warren's people below. Click here to read that and only comment on that issue in the Rick Warren post.
Alvin: Mark and I had talked for some time about writing a book together that would bring together ethics (Mark's field) and evangelism (Alvin's) in a way that is rarely seen. As we witnessed the rise of the Emerging/Emergent movement and as we observed the waning influence of the evangelical church, we began to talk about writing a book that was even more, a book that looked at faith and culture in our time in a manner that would not only discuss relevant issues, but also offer suggestions for change.
Mark: While this book interacts with the emergent church, I think for both of us it is much bigger than that one issue. We are concerned that as culture on the whole embraces the ideas of post-modernity (or what David Wells call "hyper-modernity") the Church must be careful to do three things:
1) Know where we are and how we got here,
2) Re-invigorate our commitment to foundational faith and doctrinal certainty,
3) Layout sound strategies to live in culture as missional worshippers
This book is our attempt to serve the Church by writing on these very things.
What do you mean by convergence?
Mark: It is so important for us evangelicals to not be afraid to listen to our critics. We do so many things well... but not everything. Like it or not, there are areas that conventional Christians have failed methodologically and where we are also failing to listen and learn. Thus, when we say "convergence" we are hoping to give an honest listen to folks in the emerging church movement who seem to be very aware of some very important ways the "conventional" church has failed to recognize we are living in a new era of thought and cultural norms. At the same time, while listening we also want to be careful not to simply capitulate to new ideas without first testing them by the standard of God's word and historical orthodoxy. Thus, convergence means an attempt to take the best critiques of the emergent movement while rigorously seeking to stay true to the doctrinal purity that the conventional evangelical church fought so hard to maintain.
Alvin: Simply put we mean bringing together the best of two things that may not be exactly alike for the greater good. Mark and I had such a convergence in writing the book. I grew up in the south and have pretty much always been a Southern Baptist. Mark grew up a self-proclaimed "theological mutt," and only recently has become committed to the SBC. I am not a Calvinist and Mark is; I teach evangelism, Mark ethics; and in all these things we have attained a personal convergence that we think can happen in the evangelical world and in our tradition.
What do you mean by "conventional" and "emerging?"
Alvin: I will let Mark answer this one.
Mark: While it would be wrong to categorize the Emerging Church Movement (ECM) as one large, monolithic entity, in our book we lay out what we believe to be six aspects or traits that serve as core values of the ECM. These include a commitment to being missional in methodology, wholistic in ministry emphasis (practice not just doctrine), culturally and contextually relevant. Crucially, this group will describe themselves as post-evangelical in the sense of "outgrowing" evangelical ideas of the past. This does not not necessarily abandoning them, but being willing to move beyond.
In light of these core elements we also identify (following Ed Stetzer's lead) four different "streams" or divisions appearing within the emerging church movement: relevants are those who are doctrinally conservative but methodologically innovative; reconstructionists who are seeking ecclesiological change; revisionists who are willing to surrender key elements of historic orthodoxy in order to achieve relevance; and a group we call roamers because while they are disenchanted with the conventional way of doing things, they are uncertain of where to go forward and often merely drop out of local churches and attempt to go it alone.
Is this even possible? Can we attain a convergence today?
Alvin: We believe it not only possible but essential. You can see this in the SBC today. There is a growing tension between holding on to our conventions, our heritage, and at the same time a growing number who argue that if we do not see a genuine, deep, biblical, great commission resurgence our convention will slide more and more into decline. While we did not write the book with that in mind, we think it can add much to discussions in our own tradition.
Mark: I can only wholeheartedly agree with Alvin. Too often we evangelicals find ourselves years behind the cultural shifts and thus we miss out on great opportunities to be in the midst of the messiness of life where only the name of Jesus can bring healing and hope. Emergents seem to have the vision of where culture is going, conventionals have the hope of truth and biblical fidelity. Lets figure out how to take the best of both so that we can be about the mission of God for the glory of God in the most effective manner possible!
How does this relate to converging evangelism with social ministry?
Mark: There seems to be a rather unhealthy fear among evangelical leaders that as soon as someone wants to engage social justice issues they will also surrender historical orthodoxy to do so. No question there is historical precedence for such a fear in light of the "social gospel movement" of the early 20th century. But the greater and richer history of the people of God is that throughout the previous 2000 years it has consistently been the people of God wh were not afraid to stand up for social justice issues that have also been some of the most effective witnesses to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. One need only think of Annie Armstrong or William Wilberforce to understand this. In our chapter on this issue, however, we expressly emphasize that it is via a intentional direct VERBAL proclamation of the gospel message that social justice ministries reach their most effective level. It is a both/and strategy and methodology.
How does this translate into effective church ministry?
Alvin: our attitude is one can add without subtracting. We do not argue for abolishing current methods of evangelism, but reshaping our perspective and changing the culture of our churches to be less institutional and more missional. We offer eight points of convergent evangelism:
Mark: Likewise, discipleship and mentoring moves out of the classroom and into the lives of men and women who we must seek to train up into mature and ministering worshippers of God. This is not to say Sunday school and curriculum based training is a thing of the past - far from it. When combined with life on life accountability, interfacing with lost people in real life settings and commitment to authentic community we see significant change in the quality of life, discipleship and ministry of the people of God.
Mark and/or Alvin will be on the blog today to answer your questions, so jump in the comments and let's talk. Also, I wrote the book's foreword and will post that later this week.
Mark Liederbach and Alvin L. Reid wrote the book, The Convergent Church: Missional Worshipers in an Emerging Culture. I had a chance to talk to them a bit about the book and why you all might want to read it.
