incipiosermo.com

I preached on rest last Sunday and what it means to keep Sabbath rest in our lives. In tackling the subject, I used the illustration of rhythm. Interestingly, what makes a beautiful rhythm or melody are not just the notes played (the musical activity done) but equally important are the rests, or the ceasing/resting of activity in the music. If the ceasing of sound did not occur, then it would be just noise. I related the Genesis creation account to this (on the seventh day God rested/ceased then blessed it and called it holy) and that God has establish a rhythm of rest that we as humans, too often, war against. This warring comes at great cost to our lives and relationships as it was never how we were created to live.

What would it mean to live in a proper rhythm of activity and rest in our lives, that when working together, would create a beautiful sound scape?

Labels: article, sermo

This Sunday I preached on the concept of time. Among other things, I communicated that time, unlike our marred concept of it, is beautifully and wonderfully created by God and in Genesis is called 'good.' In the process of my sermon preparation I keep coming back to the popular, yet not completely accurate, phrase: "How big is your God?" The reason I wonder about the accuracy of the phrase is that since all matter is created by God, then God isn't "bigger" than it. God is not bigger than anything, because God created the conceptional nature of size. God would, by definition, be "beyond size." That does mean, even more profoundly so, that the universe pales in comparison to God who created all that we know and experience.

So..."How 'beyond' is your God?"

Labels: article, sermo

The following stems from conversations I have had with recent graduates who are attempting to determine where God is calling them. It is meant as a reminder to both myself and others:

If you truly believe you have been called by God to serve in the capacity your in…and…If you truly believe that you are in the place God wants and desires for you…and…If you believe God only ever desires us to be real, authentic and without pretense…then…you must also equally believe you must be yourself and yourself alone. You can’t be anyone else, no matter how great or gifted they might be. It is not only impossible but a worthless exercise that only will end in disastrous disappointment.

This of course is difficult. It is difficult because people often project their opinion of who you should be. However, the only expert, besides God, on you is, well, you. Then I would simply ask: What are you waiting for? Who are you trying to be? Why are you spending so much energy trying to be someone or something you can never be? Why, instead, don’t you just be you and allow God to profoundly use you as the exact person he wants in your present location and circumstance. To be anything else would simply be hypocritical and dishonoring to yourself and, more importantly, to the God who wonderfully and beautifully created you.

Labels: article

I had a great conversation with one of our church leaders the other night about the possibility of bringing someone from overseas to do a short-term ministry in our church sometime in the future. In other words, reverse the traditional North American mission's model - which would be interesting to say the least. In the midst our conversation, I began to realize how much our culture's colonial roots still exist in my thinking. I talked about the appropriate concern of making sure that this person was ready for a ministry like this and then I thought: Why don't we assume that when we send a team to a different country that they would have those questions of us? Do we just assume that they should be grateful to have a group of North Americans minister to them? I guess it has just made me think about some of the things we assume when we interact with other cultures - often without even realizing it. Maybe our ancestor's colonial worldview still lingers closer than we think.

Labels: article

I stumbled across this article on satellite churches that is asking some of the same questions I have been asking. I am not against satellite churches per say, by why aren't these question and potential problems discussed more?

Also, the article mentions Shane Hipp's book, Hidden Power of Electronic Culture, which I would highly recommend - you can read my review of it here.

Labels: article

I have noticed a trend in churches and Church growth material recently. There seems to be a growing theory or hypothesis that unchurched people are attracted to churches who reach out in the community, feed the poor, care for others, get involved in issues of justice, etc. I don't disagree with this hypothesis at all and, in fact, think it is quite accurate. However, it is the result of this assessment that bothers me.

There have been a rash of churches who are getting involved in the community, helping the poor, and engaging the needs of our culture because of the belief that it will grow their church. I am not arguing that churches shouldn't be involved in these virtuous activities but want to ask the question: "Does our motivation matter?" In other words, is it right to get involved in the community and engage the needs of others out of the motivation to the grow the church?

I am not against feeding the poor, being involved in areas of injustice or meeting the needs of the community we are called to serve (I fully support them and argue we don't do enough), but shouldn't we do them simply because they are good and because we are called to do them? I would argue that even if they didn't produce an evangelistic response or if the church didn't grow, we are still called to participate in them. This is part of what the Church is called to be and what the Church is called to do. What would happen if your church would decrease in size if it cared for the poor or issues of justice? Would it still do it with the same passion and fervency?

Does our motivation matter? I think so. If we become the Church we are called to be, people will be attracted to it, but we need to be the Church simply because we are called to be the Church that radically loves people and shows it through everything it does, regardless of the results.

Labels: article

In our Google Age we often "google" a term for more information about it. I thought I would try an interesting and telling exercise and post the top two pictures for the following terms...

Labels: article

When one typically hears of Martin Luther they think of the great Reformer who brought the Church out of the corrupt clutches of the Medieval Catholic Church and led her into the modern era, promoting several doctrines. Luther is best know for promoting the theological conviction that salvation is by grace through faith alone. Although this is one of the "main stage" theological convictions of Luther, there are other less known "side stage" beliefs and convictions that have been largely ignored in recent years. Recently, I have been doing some research and study on Luther's view of Supersessionism (the conviction that the Church has replaced Israel and is now the new "spiritual Israel" and that the Jewish people are now without a covenant and cursed because they have rejected the Messiah). Luther was not alone in this view (there is widespread unanimity on this theology conviction in Christendom from the early Church Fathers up to and beyond the time of Luther until WWII), however when you combine Luther Suppersessionism, and at times blatant Anti-Semitic writings, with his positive view on Autocratic government and mix it with the potency of his massive influence, it is apparent that it helped to create the fertile ground in Germany that eventually gave birth to Nazism.

I am not saying that Luther was a Nazi or that he would have supported Hitler, in fact I would assume otherwise, but his writings definitely influenced the Third Reich. In fact, Luther's infamous tract: "On The Jews and Their Lies," was quoted often by the Nazis and the original copy of this tract was proudly displayed at Nurenberg during Nazi party rallies.

My research has focused on the influences of the Church Fathers, who were largely Supersessionists, upon Luther and then Luther's influence upon Christendom and eventually the Holocaust. I am also looking at the current typical Evangelical position which has grown after World War II that views God's covenant as still binding with Israel. Interestingly, the common Evangelical expression God will bless those who bless the Jews and curse those who curse the Jews would have been unthinkable before the Holocaust in Christianity.

I am not making any theological claims but simply stating how culture, world events and societal beliefs have drastic and profound effects on our theology and conversely, how our theology can have profound, even horrendous, affects on society.

Luther is a fascinating man whose influence and affects are still felt today, some 500 years after his life.

Labels: article

I hope you will allow me a few moments for a bit of a rant and then a plea.

The Rant
I have done a lot of reading on leadership over the last year and specifically the last two weeks for a pastoral leadership course I am taking. I am not a huge fan of leadership books because instead of feeling encouraged and inspired, I usually end up feeling depressed and beaten down. Maybe you have experienced something similar and without getting into detailed critiques of modern leadership books (I will post some reviews of the books I read soon), I want to express something that I feel is lacking on the subject. There is a saturation of material written (more than you ever need to read) on the success stories of leaders, who in mythical and legendary fashion are portrayed as impenetrable to lapses in judgment, bad decisions and mistakes. In many cases, they are gloried in leadership literature to the place where they are no longer even real. Maybe that is the nature of history, when we either forget someone's flaws because they did great things or we forget the good because of a mistake they made.

The problem is that whenever we view leaders (anyone for that matter) like this, they end up losing their humanity and thus their reality. We then begin to compare the worst of our leadership with the best of someone's falsely perceived leadership prowess. Consequently, it leads to everyday leaders ending up feeling like failures. Instead, why can't we read and understand leadership realistically and truthfully and as a result with hope, inspiration and honesty.

The Plea
Therefore, I plea...I beg...someone to write a book about the real, unpolished and non-airbrushed view of leadership in a way that is honest and hopeful. To write stories like Moody, who was told at the beginning of his ministry not to preach because his public speaking skills were so bad. Or, stories like Billy Graham who was told by Bob Jones of Bob Jones University that he would never amount to anything. These stories for me don't make Moody or Graham any less of a leader. In fact, these stories and perspectives allow me to actually engage them and their lives on a deeper level because they become more real...more honest...more human. In many ways, it provides me hope and the ability to see my ministry with new perspective. This doesn't mean I think we need to avoid the great parts of these amazing leaders but in the pursuit of understanding what makes them tick, we can't avoid or ignore their flaws.

Like the new DOVE commercials and their campaign for "Real Beauty" that celebrates real women instead of the plastic surgery altered and digitally "enhanced" women that have created a false ideal, I would argue we need a similar movement with pastoral leadership. We need a new perspective for "Real Leadership" that, to use the DOVE phrase: "Loves the [leadership] skin we are in."

Thus, I am asking someone to write one of the following books:

• Real Leadership
• The Human Face of Leadership
• Leaders Unmasked
• Leaders Demythologized
  
• A Realistic and Honest Look at Great Leaders

The Response
If you agree or disagree with me, let me know. If you feel you would appreciate a new kind of leadership book please join your voice with mine in calling for a new kind of leadership conversation.

Labels: article

Stemming from a conversation I had this last week, I wanted to write something about how we evaluate what we do in the local church. But before I do that, I want to say up front that I am sensitive to the struggles of the local parish and pastors whose immediate situations are so great, that survival is success in itself.

Recently, I have been fascinated with the fact that as we plan, dream and evaluate programs and/or ministries in the church we often ask what seems to be the wrong set of questions. We get caught up with questions like: "does it work?" or "is it effective?" or even "how many people are coming and responding?" I am not saying that these questions are not good, appropriate or helpful but are they the only questions to ask? In fact, are they even the most important questions?

I believe the most important, and often forgotten, questions to ask are: "Is what we are doing right and good?" "It is fair and just?" "Is it done out of selfless love?" I think ministries can be "effective," "efficient" and even produce "results" but in the end can also be wrong and lack goodness. For example, someone can come and share the gospel message and manipulate people in their delivery to the place where they produce results, but is it right, just,and good? Someone can manipulate people to give money in church and it can produce results, but is it good? We can view our pastors as directors and CEO's that run great business models, producing results, but it it good and right?

I wonder, in our ministries, do we have room for things that are good but don't produce what we would consider successful results? Are we prepared to do things that are inefficient, simply because they are right, just and good?

I think at times our pride gets caught up in the results and consequently, we assume that the number of people who come to church, receive Christ or are baptized equates success in the church. However, maybe we are not asking all the right questions.

The problem is that the question of something being right, good and just is more difficult and illusive. How do you evaluate if something good? It is much easier to evaluate based on numbers and objective data like attendance or dollars. Additionally, the question of whether something is good can also be manipulated and taken as a form of pride. For example, churches who aren't growing can manipulate this concept to defend their situation and say that they are not growing because they are good and right.

Instead, I believe these two questions must go hand-in hand. I believe the gospel is compelling and churches need to be intensely creative but can't, in doing so, avoid the question whether or not what they are doing is right and good.

We need to be prepared, at times, to do things that may not produce "results" or be "efficient." We need to be prepared to do them simply because they are right, just and good. I think these two kinds of questions can co-exist but "effective" and "efficient" can never take president, or silence the voice of something being good, right and just.

I think this way of evaluation would help to remove the trappings of success and replace it with honoring those who are committed to serving God regardless of their situation. By doing this, I think it would help to honor our quiet and hidden heroes of the faith who, as pastors, don't have mega-churches, don't write books and don't have speaking tours, but serve their communities faithfully.

Labels: article

Laurie (my wife) and I had the opportunity to attend a five-weekend leadership retreat centering on advocacy for children with disabilities. Although there is much to say about the experience, I wanted to share a thought expressed by one of our speakers that I am still working through and thinking on. It is an argument and discussion point that I hadn't heard before but one I found extremely compelling.

We were discussing the growing acknowledgment in our society, on different levels, to the need, benefit and health of including people with disabilities into every aspect of our society. Although there are many different definitions of "inclusion" and what it means, the base principle applies to each: that each human being, regardless of their ability, potential or limitations, should be provided equal opportunity to be included in our society on every level. I am becoming more and more aware of how, as a society, and frankly even as the Church, we haven't embraced this principle and in fact, by our words and actions, devalue people of different abilities - but that is a post for a different day.

The argument the speaker presented was kind of an aside in the presentation but struck home with me as an incongruent piece of a changing societal norm. In a culture that is, on the whole, positively progressing in how it treats people with disabilities and including them more and more areas of societal life, there is one aspect that seems strangely counter-progressive. In this increasingly inclusive world, we concomitantly see a health system and growing ethical system that has embraced the practice of encouraging and performing abortions for those families who, in their prenatal care, are discovered to be carrying a child with some diagnosed disability. The reason often presented is that having a child with a disability would be a to great a burden on the family, the person who has the disability and of course our economically struggling health system to carry the baby to term. However, if, as a culture, we are progressively embracing inclusion of people with disabilities in our schools, workplaces, community areas and churches, wouldn't it seem like the place inclusion should begin is the equal right to be included in birth.

It is an unjust paradox that a culture would positively shift to the see people with disabilities through their potential, and concurrently not see their right to live or even suggest/lobby for/argue for their prenatal death.

As a parent of a child with a disability who is actively trying to change culture so that it sees our son for his potential rather than his limitations (as we would all like to see seen), the infuriating irony is that individuals, like our son, are increasingly welcomed in schools, community events but sadly and despairingly, not into life outside the womb as doctors and health care professionals encourage parents to abort their children because of their potential and perceived overwhelming burden.

This can't be right and I, for one, am committed to changing our society.

Labels: article

I have been reflecting about the church lately - its past, present and potential future(s). It is one of those topics that has dominated my reflections for a number of years but has surged to the surface through recent podcasts, readings, discussions, blogs, etc.

What frequently annoys me are individuals who continually complain about the church, it's past and present, without offering solutions or at least thoughts on it's potential future. I also have to admit that I have done just that in the past because, basically, it is easy to do and doesn't involve a lot of risk. That being said, I don't have all the answers, I may not even have any answers but I do have some thoughts that I want to begin sharing.

Therefore, I thought I would begin to offer some of my reflections about the future of the Church in postmodern North America (Church as being defined as the Universal Church rather any specific Local Church). I thought I would attempt that by finishing the following sentence:

I think the North American Church, in order to effectively engage our culture must...

...begin to define itself not by it's physical structure, but by it being a community of Jesus followers. If you do a Google image search on the word "Church," you get a multitude of church-building pictures. Is that the Church? I think we need to redefine it through our methodology and our theology to be what it was meant to be: a community of believers.

...redefine success in the Church. God working in the Church is not evidenced by square footage of the physical building, number of staff members, number of buildings, flashiness of logos or web pages but in what God is doing in people's lives. Let's face it, we can get a crowd a lot of different ways, but God is more interested in changing people's lives - bring healing, hope and freedom.

...rethink the role of Pastor. I don't think the Pastor should be seen as the CEO who runs the business of the church. Instead I think the Pastor is the primary servant leader who shepherds the church into its God honoring future through prayer. Related to this is the fact that I don't believe the Pastor is the sole receiver of the church's vision but the leader who helps the community of faith discover it together.

..."invert the church." This is a phrase I began using about a year ago to refer to the fact that we have looked at evangelism as drawing people into the church to hear the gospel. Instead, I think the church must enter the world and in many ways, earn the right to be heard. We need to realize again that the Great Commission is the mission of the church. Going further, the Great Commission is not just a corporate thing the church does though its programs but through real people's lives. We need to "go into the world" again instead of just inviting people to come to church to hear the Good News. We have compartmentalized our lives so well that, as Christians, we see it as something separate. Instead, I believe we need to reintegrate our faith into every aspect of our lives which would consequently have us share our faith with those around us.

...recognize that church was meant to be messy. Why do the majority of Elder's/Leadership Meetings focus on budget, facility issues, etc. and not on questions like: "Why are people not coming to know Christ through our ministry?" or "Would the community we are located in notice if this local church didn't exist tomorrow?" or "How do we deal with X situation in X's life, giving guidance when Scripture seems less than clear on it?" Although these questions seem hard to answer, they are the questions we need to begin asking.

...honestly evaluate itself and be self-critical at times. If I ever pastor a large church with a large multiple staff, I think I would seriously encourage the church to look at hiring an in-house scholar whose ministry would revolve partially around teaching, but also a major part of his/her role would be critiquing what the church is doing from a philosophical and theological point of view as well as contributing to the realm of scholarship from a local church perspective. I, too often, see churches dive into a direction, program or vision without really critically and honestly thinking about the theological or philosophical implications (both long and short term ones) and think we need to begin really thinking about the implications before making these important decisions.

...seek to work cooperatively. We have embraced a fortified attitude in church, that often for very weird reasons, doesn't look at working with other ministries. We see people of different denominations through their differences first rather than our commonality - we have to reverse this. I know that at times and with some organizations there will be irreconcilable differences but I think, too often, we have focused on these differences at the expense of seeing God at work.

...see each member of the church as an ambassador of the Gospel in their world of influence. It is interesting that often the only community service/ministry that seems to count in the church is that which is done by the church as a corporate program. What if, instead, we commission people for the places they are already serving in, seeing the work they are already apart of as part of the larger ministry of the Church because it is done by an extension of the church - the community of faith.

...help people discover their ancient roots and learn from the past, seeing it as important rather than obsolete. In many ways, we have rejected ancient forms of Christian spirituality because they are old. Like an old B/W TV that is tossed with the garbage because it isn't new, we have abandoned so many of the practices of the Church that have served it well.

...call people to deep reflection on their beliefs. We have too often not educated but instead have indoctrinated. This works at first but its eventual outcomes are like painting your vehicle with water based kids paint that when the rain comes will be washed away and most likely damaged. We must help people know why they believe rather than just what to believe.

...embrace and work through the hard questions rather than avoid them or create simple and thus unsatisfying answers.

...be inclusive to all, seeing the important contribution that everyone makes to church regardless of their physical or intellectual situations... seeing possibilities rather than limitations. In the world of inclusion for people with disabilities I find it deeply sad that the church isn't the one leading the way?

These are a few of the thoughts I have had. This is a fluid process and one that I have been and will continue to work through now and into the future. I have incredible hope for the Church and the world and know that the Good News of Jesus is relevant in every culture, language and time in history and the mission of the Church has stayed the same through it all... I desire to be faithful to both.

Also note that these are not about a specific local church but about the church in general in North America and my ideas and opinions concerning them.

Labels: article

I think every Christian individual, church or institution is guilty of Cafeteria Christianity in some way, shape or form. We like to pick and choose the convenient theology, Bible passages or rationales for our "faith matrixes." We all have a tendency to read Scripture in order to see our preconceived ideas, understandings and constructs strengthened and fortified. We pick and choose what is convenient or even, dare I say, what works in our limited experience. But can there be times where what works, what tastes good in the cafeteria line up, is not actually what's good for you? And maybe, just maybe, in a theological and even practical way, down right bad for you?

I remember when I was in college, living on campus and eating in the cafeteria, there was a popular phrase that enter our vernacular. This colloquialism was widespread because it was true: "The Freshmen 15." It meant that it was common for freshmen to gain 15 pounds in their first year. Although there were choices in the cafeteria line, everyone regularly choose ample portions of fries, pop, ice cream, etc. with each meal. Although there were healthy choices available, few people choose them and went for the easy but not so healthy options.

I think the same is true in Christianity. We choose what we like, what works for our lives, what brings comfort, what bring security (even political security), what brings our definition of success, what puts and keeps people in the pew, what validates our worldview or theology and what simply answers our big questions. But, in the end, we have to ask the question: Am I choosing what is easy and comfortable or could what is easy and comfortable, actually be bad for me?

I am not saying that everything we choose is bad. I think, for example, the current trend to care about justice issues in the evangelical church is good but dare I ask: Do we truly care for the oppressed or do we just like the idea of it because it is trendy to do so, it eases our consciences or maybe just because it is different? In essence, are we pursuing justice, which is biblical, with the right motives? If not, maybe we end up at a good destination but forget that the journey is part of what we are called to as well. As Jesus continually reminded people, it is our heart that truly matters.

Now think of your individual beliefs about God and the Church. In this realm the same temptation applies. I think we can often take the intellectual easy-way-out in the theological buffet. As a result, we like feel-good theology, feel-good teaching, prosperity gospel, and even "escapism eschatology."

As well, continuing with the cafeteria analogy, I think there are times when we make healthy chooses but do so selectively, often ignore the inconvenient. We accept Jesus' teachings when they affirm our actions and behavior and ignore the rest that may be good but are hard and costly. So we just pass them by in the cafeteria line, picking and choosing the doctrines and way of life that make us comfortable.

I wonder, however, if the abundant life Jesus taught about consists of a well-balanced diet; a diet that is more than just a buffet of ideas leading to eventual obesity, but integrated with exercise as our faith and beliefs are lived out and practiced in our individual lives.

Maybe we need to stop frequenting the fast-food diet choices and start to engage a fuller theology and life-style, with deeper authentic questions. If life’s biggest questions are something that stir deep in our souls, causing our lives to be consumed with the hunger for its answer, then the answer that is truly satisfying can't be as simple as a "Happy Meal" that is franchised. Instead, it would be more complex and beautiful, causing, in the end, a satisfaction that can't be manufactured, measured or franchised.

So, I invite us to rethink our lives, the church and our spirituality, seeking a fuller, healthier, and well-rounded diet.

It will be hard, costly and inconvenient, but aren't the best things in life?

Labels: article

The Usual Suspects: Opening Scene
I have been reflecting recently on why people in our culture are becoming increasingly disconnected with the church. This is not a new conversation but one that Christian leaders and researchers have been involved with for a long time: study after study, book after book and conference after conference. I am not opposed to the discussion or the fact that people are speaking and writing about it - in fact, I encourage it. The question I have, however, is what if our conclusions are incomplete? I think when we reflect on why church attendance is declining we often come with the usual suspects...the music, preaching and/or programs are not relevant.

I guess it has caused me to wonder...I don’t think our conclusions are wrong but I wonder if our conclusions are incomplete. Maybe things are less complicated than we have made them out to be…maybe our complicated strategic plans, development goals, transition periods are in some ways incomplete or maybe in some cases misguided.

Usual Suspect #1: Preaching & Teaching - In terms of preaching, we have believed that people were disinterested in the Bible and thus moved to solely topical messaged based on “felt-needs.” But how much does the Bible say about busyness, parenting, friendship compared to the basic and timeless Good News of God. Ironically, and maybe even strategically, I think we are treating symptoms rather than the true human condition, the disease if you will, that people apart from God are lost (not only living in darkness but spiritual death). I am not opposed to topical preaching or connecting with felt needs, but when they dictate and dominate our preaching schedules and content at the expense of the timeless story of God, the Good News of Jesus, then something is wrong isn't it? To be honest, I wonder...what if we faithfully preached the whole counsel of God and no one came, would that be okay? Is it better to preach only on felt needs if that is what brings a crowd? Ironically, I think what draws the crowd these days are church’s that are preaching the whole counsel of God - preaching Christ crucified rather than solely felt need issues.

Usual Suspect #2: Service - Typically in church growth material you, indirectly at least, get the picture that people just want to be consumers of Christian services in church and so we should tailor it according. I would argue that we have even done this to the point where we offer community (an intangible and often allusive thing) as a promised commodity that people WILL experience if they come to church or one of its programs. Is this right or even true? I am of the opinion that people actually want to serve and be an active and vital part of the community rather than just a receiver or consumer of services. So maybe instead of just providing services, or even instead of providing services, we need to give people opportunities to serve – to be a vital and connected part of the community we want to participate in. I contend that this would then in many ways help to create the atmosphere for community to grow.

Usual Suspect #3: Music - That infamous and almost feared controversy in church. We often assume that if we change the music people will come. Although I believe it is important, I think people in our culture are less concerned about this one then we are as people in the church. Church's have split, whole denominations have formed, because we have believed this to be of major significance. Although I think it is important and people need to be drawn into worship in their cultural contexts in effective ways, maybe we have made this to be the main thing when in fact people outside the church care less than we do about it. I don't dismiss the importance of this issue, but I think it is more of an internal church issue dealing with people's personal preference than anything else. Ironically the attitudes in the church that are created and fostered through this debate and infest or inoculate the church has more effect on the church's openness than the actual music that is played.

Usual Suspect #4: Leadership and Organizational Structures - You don’t read a lot about leadership and organizational structures in Emerging Church material but I think how a church is organized and the leadership structure it chooses affects its current and future success. For example, a leadership and organizational structure that focuses around a charismatic figure has a structure that is very different from a structure based more on a congregational grass roots model. There are many different models out there, all having their place, but this is often looked at briefly and then ignored to a great extent.

The Usual Suspects: Ending Credits
These are a few of the things I have been thinking about lately as I reflect on the church and its relevance in our world. I want to make it crystal clear…I have great hope for the Church and want to do all I can to honour and serve the Bride of Christ but the Church and what it is and is not is something that I continue to struggle with but in it all knowing that God will prevail.

Labels: article

There is a myth we deluded ourselves into believing. Either is it a myth about ourselves if we are a pastor or about our pastor(s) if we are not. These myths have, in many ways, directly or indirectly led to unhealthy ministries, lives and families and even to pastoral burn out. This myth is the myth of the “Indefatigable Pastor.” In other words, it is the myth that the pastor is super-human and not able to ever be exhausted or get tired. We can believe that sleep, recreation, times of recharging are luxuries for the pastor, where in fact, it is a necessity to a healthy and vibrant ministry.

We have relatively little recorded in Scripture on the life of Jesus, so what is recorded we have to understand as important enough for the gospel writers to remember, recall, and, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, record. Have you ever noticed how many times in these recorded incidents that Jesus goes away to rest and connect with his Father?

Jesus, the perfect Son of God, needed to rest.

Jesus didn’t do everything humanly possible in the sense that he didn’t heal everyone or speak at every request. Jesus did, however, do everything that was humanly healthy, as he lived a perfectly balanced life and ministry that too many of us, as pastors, forget about and even consciously reject in our volitionally chosen busy schedules and calendars. I am not opposed to hard work, but unhealthy busyness is just that, unhealthy and consequently unsustainable.

Labels: article

I’ve been reflecting since the Small Group DeConference last week about the role of community in Spiritual Transformation. It is interesting to reflect on the amount of importance that we, in our current North American Church culture, have placed on Small Group ministry. I don’t discard this reality and I strongly believe and live the important value that Small Group ministries need to have in our lives.

However, it has drawn numerous sociological and ecclesiological questions from me. First sociologically…it is interesting that hundreds of years ago people would retreat to monastic communities, or go alone into the desert or wilderness because they believed that Spiritual Transformation occurred in isolation. I think part of the reason this occurred was due to the fact that people lived in smaller communities; people lived with their relatives, personally knew their neighbors, had close friends and lived interconnected lives together.

Recognize the difference?

Our lives today, especially in suburbia, have become exceptionally isolated. We open our garages and enter our houses without connecting on any level with our neighbors, our nuclear families spend little time together, and our nuclear families live very separate lives from our extended family. Maybe it is our isolated lives that draw us to reflect and long for deep community (deep ecclesiology) with others because we don’t experience anything like it on a regular basis. Maybe that is why isolation for spiritual development is not commonly practiced in our culture. Reversely, maybe that is why hundreds of years ago when people lived communally, it would seem appropriate that people sought isolation for a deeper connection with God.

I am not against community or isolation. I see both evidenced in the life of Jesus and throughout Scripture as important aspect for the life of a Christ follower. What I am referring to is the interesting dynamic of our spiritual lives and transformation and how we have begun to look at Small Groups as the sole answer. I think it is an important part of that answer but I also think it needs to be balanced with times of isolation and solitude…both of which we struggle with in our culture. When it comes to spiritual transformation (which can only be done through the ministry of the Holy Spirit), there is a place for both seemingly opposites: community and isolation.

Maybe opposites do attract.

Labels: article

We visited my Grandma at her senior’s home in Edmonton last week and my kids were, well, let’s just say, less than well behaved. There are times when as a parent you try and tell kids to be quiet because there are people sleeping in the next room and all they hear is it’s time to play LOUDER.

What is it about children that make them look for fun in every area of life – in every way? I have been reminded of this lately and how much ministry is often stripped of fun, enjoyment and play by well…us. We often forget that serving God, leading worship, preaching, etc. can be fun. I know there are times where the situation causes fun to take a backseat, death and sickness for example, but serving God can be fun. Elder’s meetings can be fun, small groups can be fun, and even church can be fun filled with fun, laughter and excitement.

There are times where fun needs to take a backset but I think we have often put fun in the trunk and ignored its contagious laughter. I often tell people who are helping to lead worship as we pray before a worship service, that we are called to worship the God of the universe with all our hearts and it is very serious BUT it can also be incredibly fun.

I’m not sure why we have ignored the opportunity to have fun in ministry but it’s time to take fun out of the trunk and put it back in the car. I know there are times in ministry where things are difficult - where visiting a mourning family or dying person is difficult. In these times, fun needs to get moved to the backseat but let’s not lock it up in the trunk.

Taking this a step further, part of fun in ministry is the concept of play…I use the concept of “play” to refer to the idea of creativity and taking risks (the days of make believe, when army soldiers, Transformers or Barbie’s came to life out of the toy boxes of our youth). Maybe our conservative, no risk, modern ministry models need to be refined or even replaced with more of a concept of uncompetitive play and fun. What if we looked at ministry and new ministries as fun ways of loving God and others and if by taking the risk, they didn’t work out then have we lost? Or, what if we opened up the floodgates of trapped and buried creatively to see the new ministry models, ideas and strategies that can creatively communicate the Gospel pour out into our every changing world. Maybe we have taken the competitive nature of our society and mistakenly imported it into ministry. And maybe…just maybe we need to do for ministry what Timbit Soccer and Timbit Hockey has done for kids sports - make them fun again, worrying less about winning and succeeding and more about seeing how we can partner with God and in that profound reality, having fun doing so. Consequently, we will inevitably fail at times, but can trying our best to honorably, joyfully and passionately serve God ever be defined as failure?

Writing something like this is risky as well…some may say that I don’t take God or ministry seriously enough. Well, if that is the case then they don’t know me and have misunderstood. Seeing God work, seeing Him turn death to life, seeing Him give light to darkness is serious stuff to be sure, but it is also exceptionally fun.

Imagine the disciples ministering with Jesus, seeing the lame walk, the blind see, the dead rise…that sounds like fun to me. Serving the God of the universe is a serious calling with a burden to bear, but let’s not forget that when we serve God in the way he has called and gifted, it can be fun too.

Labels: article

In a leadership class I’m in, we’ve been having discussions about the pastor being the shepherd and that part of being a shepherd is protecting the sheep against wolves or even wolves in sheep’s clothing. Although I agree with that, I want to propose a question no one seems to ask or probe but one that in my opinion beckons:

“Who protects the sheep from the shepherd?”

We talk about protecting the flock (congregation) from people who may be “false teachers,” harmful or malicious people who destroy unity and hurt others, but what happens when the wolf is the pastor - the very shepherd who is suppose to protect?

Who protects the sheep from the pastor who handles conflict in explosive and unhealthy ways, or the pastor who is manipulative and controlling, or the pastor who is teaching false doctrine, or the pastor who doesn’t keep confidence, or the pastor who is having an affair? In the discussion of pastor as shepherd, the question MUST be asked: who guards the sheep against them? How does the shepherd/pastor protect the sheep and his or her ministry from himself/herself?

Here are a few practical ways I thought of doing this:
1) To avoid against slipping into preaching false doctrine and being unfaithful to scripture: I think constant education as well as having a group of colleagues who rotationally listen to each other’s sermons and provide feedback. This serves not only to guard against false doctrine but aids in professional development as well.
2) To protect the church against a controlling pastor there needs to be understanding, resources and encouragement for the pastor to keep emotionally healthy in ministry. As Pete Scazzero says…it is impossible to have a healthy ministry and spirituality if one is emotionally unhealthy.
3) To keep one’s life of moral purity (financially, sexually, emotionally, etc.), there must be a level of accountability with someone whom the pastor can be totally honest with. There are also practical fences one can build to protect one’s self from temptation and falling into the deep well of sin.
4) To remember to rest and to have times and places where you can have fun and be yourself, apart from professional expectations.

To be a good shepherd, one must begin with humility; a recognition that one is human and can fall fast and hard into sin’s grasp. If we, as pastors, are shepherds of the sheep and part of our calling is to protect the flock then we must…WE MUST…do what we can to protect them from ourselves.

Labels: article

Have you ever had the experience that what you believed didn't integrate with what you experienced. That which you once held so dear seemed lacking when life jerked it away from it's comfortable place in your grasp. That is one of the many experiences I have had lately in my life and faith.

There are certain theological beliefs (orthodoxy) and practices (orthopraxy) that I hold and others that I embrace and I think there is a difference in nuance that I want to explain. There are beliefs I embrace which identifies them with something I love, cherish, adore and hold tightly. These things are those that are non-negotiable: importance of the Church and community, theological beliefs such as the Trinity, inerrancy of Scripture or the incarnation of Christ.

There are other beliefs and practices that I hold but not embrace. Holding implies a looser grasp, beliefs that are open for debate and ones that are not as essentially foundational to my faith. These allow me to worship with brothers and sisters in Christ that differ with me on what I hold but agree with what we embrace. These are things like my hermeneutical (fancy name for interpretation) technique for the Book of Revelation, my view on what happens to the elements at communion, how communion is celebrated, whether the creation account was seven literal days or representing God's good creative work over time, or whether I worship God though contemporary choruses or traditional singing without instruments. These are just a few examples.

Oddly I find, as I grow and mature in my spiritual life, that I embrace less and hold more, but what I do embrace, I am learning to truly embrace - to love and cherish.

Labels: article

I have been reflecting on leadership lately; more specifically, I have been reflecting on the idea of pastoral leadership. You don’t have to look very far in Church sub-culture and you realize the incessant desire to be the best leader you can be (just take a tour of your local Christian bookstore). I am not against that but what I do struggle with is the measure by which pastors often view “successful pastoral leadership.” Bill Hybels, Rick Warren, John Maxwell are but a few of the plethora of leadership gurus out there, all of which are considered very “successful.” They have pastored large churches, written books, regularly speak on leadership, and many pastors look to them as their example and what they are striving to be.

I am not against good leadership, leadership workshops or leadership books. I am a leader who is passionate about being the best leader I can be, but I struggle with what I call the “mythical leader.” By “mythical leader,” I refer to the fact that, like superstars in our culture, people have warped views of what they are like in person. Like young girls measuring their exterior beauty with models that are Photoshopped and airbrushed, many pastors can feel a deep blow to their self-esteem because they believe the myth that these “leaders” are superhuman, never making mistakes or wrong decisions. I am not saying that they aren’t very gifted, but they are also human. So we can compare ourselves with mythical figures and think we are not worthy of our calling, but in the end we are comparing ourselves with a mythical character that, although gifted, is not as perfect as we perceive them to be. Contrarily, I believe, and think the Bible clearly teaches, that each pastor has been created and gifted uniquely for the calling that God has given them.

I think this conversation also needs to address the perceptions of the Church. Many people in church (speaking generically) compare their pastor (his/her leadership capability, administrative prowess, preaching gift, and counseling skills) with these mythical figures and of course no one can measure up to a fictionally ideal standard. In fact, that is one of the drawbacks of our twenty-first century culture. Sixty plus years ago, there wasn’t this same mythical picture. I think this began a bit with the iterant speaker, expanded with the use of radio and exploded with TV. Although I am very comfortable with the pastor that I am, my gifts and my limitations, there is always this opaque expectation I place, and at times others place, before me that I will never reach.

I wish there were more books and ministries that focused on being the person, follower of Jesus, and pastor that we are called, gifted and created by God to be. Maybe if we, as pastors, spent less time focusing on something we can never be and tried more to be better at who we are and how God created us, we would see a revolution of pastoral leadership that would lead to greater self-esteem, greater ministries and therefore greater effectiveness.

I don’t think this dismisses the need for personal and professional growth or the desire to be a better leader or even the need for good leadership in the church. All of these I wholeheartedly embrace, but maybe we need to focus more on being ourselves and thus be a better leader within the framework God has created and called.

Labels: article

I don’t know about you, but because of my experience growing up with Sesame Street, Mr. Rogers, superheroes and other cartoons, I got the overwhelming message that I was special. I was told that I could do anything I wanted if I put my mind to it and worked hard enough. I don’t think I am the only one with that message imprinted on my psyche.

Consequently, we now have an adult generation (my generation) of people who are to some degree dealing with disappointment and depression because they have realized the truth; we each have limitations and as someone once said: “we are special, just like everyone else.” I think this is evidenced in our culture with the obsession with fame and the eventual disillusionment of what I call “American Idol Syndrome” (the individuals who audition and are convinced they are a rock star yet have no possibility of fulfilling that dream).

I am not against dreams but maybe we have to temper them with a dose of reality at times. I love music but I know that although I at times dream of being a rock star, it is more a fantasy than a dream because it exceeds my capabilities. God didn’t give me the gift of an amazing voice and no matter how hard I try, I won’t be a rock star or anything close to it.

I also know that I am very normal and therefore my question evolves: “What is wrong with normal?” Why is normal seen as appalling? I think, for the most part anyway, this is a problem plaguing our postindustrial materially wealthy culture where “special” is, to some limited degree, possible for the average person. It is possible for a select few to be a superstar, for the son of a carpenter to become a rock star or for the daughter of plumber to be an actress. In view of history, this is a fairly new development in the sociological history of humankind. A hundred years ago or in the majority of the world today, your future was/is determined, usually by the career of your parents. Your life was the way it was by what seemed like a predetermined destiny, with little choices except whether or not to make the most of your destined situation. Contrast that with our culture today where the average 14-16 year old is forced to make major life-altering decisions about their career path from a seemingly limitless list of choices. The pressure of that and the potential to be wrong are equally distressing.

It is this phenomenon that I think feeds into shows like Heroes (which my wife and I began watching this Christmas). I think all of us want to be special…to do something no one else can do. We all fantasize about having an ability that would make us unique and special. I know I am not alone in this struggle with who I am and in many ways coming to grips with my limitations and beginning to see them as gifts from God. Let’s face it, if we were all gifted in every way, with no limitations, we would self-destruct…so I remember that we are normal. We each have numerous limits that are not the bane of our existence to be grieved, rather they are limits that need to be celebrated as gifts from God as much as our abilities are. Part of what makes you and I special is not simply our abilities but our limitations. So maybe we all need a dose of reality and accept who we are and who we are not.

Labels: article

The following post is an article I wrote for our Church's Monthly Newsletter. It was inspired by my trip to Bolivia and thought you may find it interesting...








Cultural Differences
One of the many things my mission’s trip to Bolivia has caused me to reflect upon is the reality and influences of culture in our lives, specifically in Christianity. Although I knew cultural differences would exist, I didn’t realize that they would exist in such stark contrast. For example, there are obvious differences between what South Americans consider personal space issues verses what we consider personal space. There are also striking differences in what “on time” means as we have a very scheduled culture and expectations, where South American culture is very laid back and things start when enough people arrive. There is also the difference of our very individualistic culture while their culture is more based on community. There are also differences in how we as North America consider and find “stuff” important compared to those who live in the third world, where they are more focused on community rather than commodity.

Although I never directly experienced this, I was also told that in Bolivia, and probably for many South American cultures, it is culturally unacceptable to deny a request. For example, if you are invited to attend a birthday party, it is an insult to deny someone’s invitation. Instead, it is more polite to say you will be there (even if you won’t) rather than to offend the other person by saying you have a previous commitment. South America is also a very different culture in that people are very willing to do what you ask of them. One of the things my friend Ken told me was that if I were to have an alter call and have people physically respond by coming forward after a church service, almost everyone would. They would do it whether or not they agreed with what you were teaching or not. Even if they disagree with you, it is just polite to do what is asked.

Those are just some of the examples of cultural differences between North and South American cultures. These differences have prompted me to reflect upon a number of issues related to culture and Christianity. Christianity, at its core, is not a Western belief system, but an ongoing life-transforming relationship with God that supersedes culture, language, time, nations, genders, etc. Although our cultural expression of Christianity may be “western,” Christianity is not. This is the entanglement that has demanded my attention lately, the determination and distinction between the core message of Jesus and the North American, western, twenty-first century expression of Christianity.

Christianity Beyond Culture And The Compulsion It Creates
I think that if we truly believe that the Good News of Jesus is essential and applicable in every time, culture, language, nation and genre, then it would make a fundamental and radical difference to us. Thus as we, and those on our behalf (Missionaries), bring the message of Jesus to others, we first and foremost bring a message of life – an invitation to be a part of the Kingdom of God. We bring a message that it as applicable and desperately needed to any culture around our globe at any time in history.

But we also need to understand and realize that each culture needs to express their love for God differently and for us to convert them to “western” culture is not what we are called to do and I would strongly argue that it is also both counter-productive and wrong. Instead, we need to understand that each culture needs to express their love for God within their own language and culture.

This is dramatically presented in the scene from the movie “The Mission,” where we see the main character, played by Robert De Niro, hauling a massive organ up a mountain under the false pretense that the people of that culture couldn’t worship God without it. In essence, he confused a cultural expression with the core and essential message of Jesus.

Moving One Culture Closer
You may be reading this and saying that you agree with me and missionaries need to do this all the time but I would like to challenge your thinking one step further. Although we may find it easy to say that Missionaries need to do this and should do this in their ministries, I also believe that there is a need for us to constantly be rethinking this in our own ministry context in North America. When you look at your life, as well as the ministry of Devon Alliance Church, what are the cultural expressions that you, or we, have established as essential to the Gospel message of Jesus?

Knowing Culture… Explaining God
Which leads me to this… in order to know how to communicate God’s truth and love in any culture, Missions 101, we have to know the culture in which we are sharing God’s love and the message of salvation with. I think we would all agree that the colonial way of doing missions was both unwise and wrong. The colonial missions philosophy transported culture and cultural expression of Christianity and radically confused it with the core message of Jesus. Instead, we need to learn a culture and understand it so we can explain and share the message of Jesus with the people in it – the timeless, language-less, genderless and cultureless message of Jesus. But to do this we MUST know and live in the culture. We can’t explain or interpret something to those we don’t know or understand.

It would be like the Americans I heard about in Bolivia who arrived on a mission’s trip to the boy’s home and were under the false presumption that if they talked loader and slower the boys would understand them. That somehow English spoken slow and loud equated Spanish. The same goes with Christianity. We have to know and understand the culture to which we are sharing it with – to do it any other way would be meaningless.

This is the example we see in Scripture with Paul at Mars Hill in Acts 17. Here Paul uses culture and the local philosophy/religion to share that the unknown God they were worshipping is the God who sent his son Jesus; the same Jesus who lived and died for them so that they could have and live the abundant and eternal life in Him. We need to learn from Paul in how we view missions and evangelism. In order to know the culture we have to live in it. The Bible says to be in the world but not of it (John 17:15-16). We have too often focused on the second half of that phrase and forget that we need to live in the world, culture and society to interact and share the life-transforming message of Jesus with those in it.

In Bolivia there are some examples of those who I would argue have gone to the extreme of not being a part of the world. There are several Mennonite colonies in Bolivia that only speak German and live very separated lives from the society at large. It is quite bizarre to walk down the street in South America and see a traditional Mennonite family from an isolated colony, as you would see in Canada, walking down the street. The problem with this philosophy, whether lived exuberantly or subtly, is that God’s message stays within rather than moves out. Think of the phrase “abundant life” (John 10:10). This phrase implies that there is so much life, it is overflowing and must be shared. I would even argue that it can’t, by definition, be horded or protected… it must, by its very existence, be shared and given away.

The Message of Jesus and Us
We need to consider how we view the Gospel, the Good News of Jesus. Have we relegated it to our cultural expressions and substituted those insufficient expressions for the life changing/transforming message of Jesus. If we truly believe this, I contest that our voices and our passion for the lost would grow and our heart for missions would explode. And consequently, our desire for the Kingdom of God (the dream of God) would begin to germinate in our lives and in the world.

Labels: article