I’m not like these guys, but this past weekend is proof that I’m getting better at taking risks.

May you grow in your ability to take risks as well.

Can’t view the link, check it out on the Flight of the Frenchies website (via Gideon Tsang).

It is said that emerging Christians confess their faith like mainliners—meaning they say things publicly they don’t really believe. They drink like Southern Baptists—meaning, to adapt some words from Mark Twain, they are teetotalers when it is judicious. They talk like Catholics—meaning they cuss and use naughty words. They evangelize and theologize like the Reformed—meaning they rarely evangelize, yet theologize all the time. They worship like charismatics—meaning with their whole bodies, some parts tattooed. They vote like Episcopalians—meaning they eat, drink, and sleep on their left side. And, they deny the truth—meaning they’ve got a latte-soaked copy of Derrida in their smoke- and beer-stained backpacks.

Ouch.

Read as part of the MAGL.

Any successful movement will eventually create a backlash. First there was the Emergent movement, which criticized the ahistorical nature of the megachurch, and it’s lack of philosophical savvy.  More recently, the idea of churches being “missional” has gained traction.  The conversation began when missiologists, typified by Newbigin, began to see that the West was becoming overwhelmingly secular.  Over the past few years, this criticism has been boiled down to a dichotomy between Missional and Attractional.  Attractional was associated with anything highly organized, strategically planned and efficiently marketed.  Missional then began to take on the opposite form any many minds.  Grassroots instead of corporate.  Spontaneous instead of strategic.

Both of these movements have made important criticisms.  Both of them have tried to offer alternative forms.  But there aren’t many Emergents still around, and many believe it’s only a matter of time before the missional movement does the same.  So what is it that has allowed the Megachurches to stick around while their critics seem to fade away? Is it possible that well meaning missionaries have thrown the baby out with the bathwater?

Being missional is often equated with being “organic,” and organic is often equated with being freeform, open and completely lacking in structure.  Not only is this a poor philosophy for any entrepreneurial endeavor, but it is the opposite of the word “organic” and a far cry from the missionary models of the New Testament.

If by organic we mean something that grows naturally, we should review how exactly it is that plants and animals grow.  They begin with a single cell which replicates its DNA and builds a system of bones, tissues and organs.  Within that original cell is the blueprint for a dandelion, a blue whale or a linebacker.  In other words an egg has everything it needs to become a healthy and tasty chicken.

Many missional endeavors seem to do little more than gather burned out church people in a living room.  Often, in an attempt to differentiate themselves from their over-programmed counterparts, they fail to develop strategy and structure.  They may provide a meaningful opportunity for worship, healing and community, but it is doubtful whether they ever truly engage their community in a missional way.

The question that missionaries should ask is not “how can I avoid becoming like that church?” but “what strategies and structures will facilitate missional interaction with my surrounding community?” This will lead to the development of systems for engaging people in worship, discipleship and community service. Sound programmatic? Perhaps. But if done with a desire to truly incarnate the body of Christ in a unique local setting, this will undoubtedly result in what the “organic” leader claims he or she anyways: A naturally occurring representation of the gospel.

Missional Misstep: Underestimating the need for strategy and structure.

Questions to get you back on course:

1) Am I avoiding better organizing our church because of my personality or baggage?

2) Are there systems or structures that naturally occur in my community or in the history of the Church which can provide a blueprint for a locally incarnational representation of the church?

The image is one of stewards reporting to their master.  In their role as servants, Jesus does not speak of disciples being judged on the basis of good conduct, sacrifices, religious life, liturgy, theology or racial makeup. As servants they are judged by what they did or did not do for those in their world who were obviously in need. They are judged on the basis of their diakonia as servants of the Master who gave his life as a ransom for many.  This gives us a concrete meaning of the new commandment “love one another”–the supreme test of discipleship.

Charles van Engen, God’s Missionary People.

Read as part of the MAGL.

This is the high point of the Christian Calendar, celebrated by Catholics and Orthodox, the ancient Armenian and Ethopian churches, Mainline Protestant, and confused Evangelicals.  Over the past few decades, everyone from Baptists to Pentecostals have been looking for methods to help them flesh out their faith in their day to day lives.  They read something from the Book of Common Prayer and to may even give up chocolate in the spring, and secretly hope they’re not sliding down the slippery slope to Mary worship. This desire to incorporate older forms of worship was most championed by Robert Webber, who reasoned:

“The way into the future, I argue, is not an innovative new start for the church; rather, the road to the future runs through the past. These three matters—roots, connection, and authenticity in a changing world—will help us to maintain continuity with historic Christianity as the church moves forward.”

Webber had it half-right.  In his concern for creating a more visceral worship experience, he drew on two thousand years of spiritual formation to address the unique needs of post-modern thinkers.  But the other half of the equation Webber did not address was local, day to day culture.

If nothing else, being missional means being missionary.  A missionary is one who learns a culture, in order to present the gospel in words and forms that make sense to them.  While I sympathize, and happily participate, with evangelicals wishing to reclaim liturgical traditions, we need to realize that those actions alone will not help us present the gospel to the cultures we encounter.

The value of a the liturgical calendar is not in specific rites, but in the idea that how we organize our time defines our lives.

What if, as we set out on our missional endeavors, we took the concepts of time and calendar seriously.  Are there celebrations in a local culture that can be redeemed by the gospel?  Are their gross imbalances that can be reformed through organized, corporate disciplines?  Perhaps borrowing from other Christian traditions may help us address this or perhaps we will find ourselves creating something new.

In my church in Austin, Texas, we occasionally recognize traditionally Christian seasons and holidays.  We anticipate during Advent, reflect during Lent and party on Easter.  But we also host concerts during SXSW, ride our bicycles through the East Austin Studio Tour, and run around the park during the Zilker Kite Festival.  We do these things because we are Austinites.  But we do them together because we are the Church.

In the past, evangelicals have eschewed the practices of other churches.  Today, they seem to grasp at them in hopes of providing a lost sense of meaning.  What if instead, we looked at our neighborhood and asked the question “How does this people organize their lives? How can the gospel be presented within that?”