revolution

Leadership Ethos

Carman — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 16:02:19 GMT

Len Hjalmarson, on his Next Reformation blog, makes a comment that is sure to stir up controversy.

"The common large church culture (though true in many small churches also) reflects a leadership ethos that is inimical to spirituality."

Some dictionary definitions of the words "inimical" and "ethos" drive home Hjalmarson's statement like a heavyweight punch to the gut.

Webster defines ethos as "the distinguishing character, sentiment, moral nature, or guiding beliefs of a person, group or institution."

Inimical is defined by Webster as 1: hostile, unfriendly 2: harmful, adverse.

We can rephrase Hjalmarson's statement, saying, "The common large church culture (though true in many small churches also) reflects a leadership belief that is hostile to spirituality."

Is this true?

Referring to living in the house of fear as opposed to the house of love, Hjalmarson observes "All our energy is invested in maintenance and in defense of what already exists. Yet the Spirit calls us forward to a new future."

Jesus encountered the leadership of his day who were the epitome of Hjalmarson's observation. They gave themselves so completely to maintaining and defending their own religious structure that the Spirit in Jesus calling them to a new future couldn't lead them. Two thousand years haven't changed anything. There are those who are so intent on preserving the present structure that they are unable to follow the Spirit into the future.

Why is this? Is it because there is such an unfriendly disposition toward the spiritual that we cannot hear the Spirit speaking to our hearts to leave what we are familiar with in the present to receive from God a new future?

The Mission of God

Carman — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 11:30:31 GMT

I've just begun reading Christopher J. H. Wright's The Mission of God. Recognized as his magnum opus, this work is a grand sweep of God's mission from Genesis to Revelation. According to Wright, "Mission is what the Bible is all about," It is the basis of the Bible just as the Bible is the basis of mission. Wright admits this is a bold claim, but he proceeds to prove his point as he embarks on establishing a missional hermeneutic for the correct interpretation of Scripture.

Being dissatisfied with the popular use of the word "mission" as it is used primarily for human endeavors, Wright argues for the priority of God's mission, saying, "Fundamentally, our mission (if it is biblically informed and validated) means our committed participation as God's people, at God's invitation and command, in God's own mission within the history of God's world for the redemption of God's creation."

Considering the little that I've read thus far, I wonder if our priorities and mission would change in the light of understanding Scripture from the perspective of God's mission to redeem his creation. I can't help but wonder if many of the missions we take on are not our own doing, for whatever reason, though we claim it is for the "glory of God." In the words of Wright, "Our mission flows from and participates in the mission of God."

The provincialism and pettiness of many of our "missions" expose the source of our initiatives as originating with self and not God. The grandiosity of God's mission leaves no room for trivial bickering due to "territorial" claims we maintain. Realizing that it is all God's territory, our perspective will be liberated from the fear of infringement upon "our territory." It's not our mission, but God's. It is a privilege he has given to us to participate in the redemption of his creation, along with millions of others. Thus we can forget about establishing our little kingdoms because we've been recruited to participate in the establishment of the only kingdom that is lasting - the kingdom of God.

Alignment

Carman — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 12:55:45 GMT

There are questions that I can't shake regarding the handling of the Todd Bentley situation. The basis for my questions and comments are statements issued by Peter Wagner, a self-declared apostle who mobilized the team that went to Lakeland at the request of Stephen Strader, the host pastor of the "Lakeland Outpouring."

Wagner says he felt compelled, even going against the advice of some of his colleagues, to follow God's leading to go to Lakeland and "initiate some sort of apostolic intervention." He based his decision on the word he said God spoke to him regarding Todd Bentley, which was the single word "Alignment." Wagner interpreted this word as meaning that Todd Bentley needed to come into alignment with an apostolic network. This is where I begin to question Wagner's interpretation of "Alignment."

We need to first align ourselves with the truth, God's word, not some man-made network or organization. Wagner admits in his own words that apostolic alignment took precedence over dealing with doctrinal and ministry issues, which he was advised to deal with first. The result was a public commissioning and endorsement of a leader who had gone astray. Yet Wagner continues to defend his decision, although he is quick to add, "I didn't lay on hands, I didn't anoint with oil, in fact I moved to the back and neither my wife, Doris, nor I prayed or prophesied."

My question is why, as the lead apostle in this ceremony, did he permit the anointing with oil, the prayers and the prophecies to continue? He states "God had assigned" him to go and apostolically intervene in the chaos and confusion that had erupted through Todd Bentley. Yet there was no intervention, only endorsement that added to the confusion.

The day after the ceremony, it is reported that things began to be exposed and unravel. Contrary to the spin that the apostolic alignment in the public commissioning the night before was the cause of this exposure, I believe God took matters into his own hands because the intervention he desired did not take place. However, man is taking the credit for it.

Scripture clearly relates how God drops the plumb line of his word into situations to align people with his truth. Yet in the Lakeland situation, it appears that those who were called upon to intervene could only see and function through the grid of their own ministries and organizations. Thus their ministry supplanted the plumb line of God's word that would have brought correction to that which was badly out of line.

Whose Interests?

Carman — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 14:22:40 GMT

Blogs and websites are all abuzz with the Lakeland fiasco and its fallout. Among others, J. Lee Grady, editor of Charisma, comments on this in his Fire in My Bones column. Much of what he says is right on. However, there are some statements he makes that raise concern, although none of those commenting on his article address this. He writes:

"Todd Bentley's announcement that his marriage is ending has thrown our movement into a tailspin - and questions need to be answered."

"If all those who were eager to promote Bentley now rush just as fast to repent for their errors in judgment, then the rest of us could breathe a huge sigh of relief - and the credibility of our movement could be restored."

At the risk of sounding judgmental, it appears that he has his own personal agenda when he speaks of "our movement." I can only surmise that he is referring to the charismatic movement from a closing statement in his column: "I urge everyone in the charismatic world to pray for Todd Bentley..." With this statement, he divides the body of Christ into at least two factions, the charismatic sector and the rest of the body considered to be outside the charismatic movement.

In his letter to the Corinthians, Paul addresses the whole issue of divisions within the body, saying it is indicative of our spiritual immaturity and fleshliness. By seeking to bring correction to one problem, Grady's words expose another huge problem that needs correction, divisiveness within the body of Jesus Christ.

It sounds as if Grady's primary concern is "our movement." That which God initiated, the restoration of the charismata to his people, has now been taken over by man, whereby it is referred to as "our movement." This is an accurate statement, being that it reveals how man has made this his movement. What about the greater mission of God? What about the kingdom of God and its advancement?

Grady unknowingly discloses the shallowness and superficiality of the "movement" he is so concerned about with his trivial statement that credibility can be restored if those who promoted Todd Bentley will repent, "then the rest of us could breathe a huge sigh of relief." What he communicates to me is that once repentance takes place, "we can get back to business as usual, promoting our movement." This exhibits a glaring deficiency in understanding the human psyche. Significant trauma has resulted from this in the lives of many, not to mention the perspective that the watching world has taken on from this debacle, which only confirms their preconceived biases. Grady's statement is an affront and embarrassment to any believer whose heart is after God and His interests. The words of Jesus come to mind in light of the immersion of ourselves in our own movements and programs: "You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God's interests, but man's" - Matthew 16:23.

Wake Up Call?

Carman — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 14:24:19 GMT

Once again the body of Christ has been rocked by scandal. The recent revelations of Todd Bentley's plans for separation and divorce, coupled with his unhealthy emotional relationship with a member of his staff have brought an abrupt end to the Lakeland healing revival. All kinds of questions are being asked while the critics of Todd Bentley are having a field day.

The questions I have don't pertain to Todd Bentley directly, but to other Christian leaders. Those recognized as leaders in their particular stream of the body of Christ initiated and conducted a public commissioning service of Todd Bentley with the laying on of hands and "prophetic words" proclaiming great things for Todd and his ministry.

How could these "leaders" commission and endorse a man if they knew of his marital problems? If they didn't know, how could they commission someone they knew so little about? These are supposedly mature leaders who hear God. Why didn't they hear God on this matter? If God wasn't speaking, why wasn't he speaking to them when they were about to make such a serious blunder?

The actions of those who many look to as mature leaders ought to raise serious concern regarding the health of the body. The naivete or foolishness of such a commissioning service is not the product of maturity, but is elicited from impressionable minds lacking discernment.

This should be a wake up call to the body of Christ. When those who carry such influence with so many believers can be duped into such misjudgment, it doesn't bode well for the body at large. It speaks of a Christianity that is a lot of fluff, impressed by appearance, but lacking a firm foundation. This indicates a severely distorted perspective we have of ourselves, not unlike that of the Laodicean church. The question is, "Will we seek, hear and act upon the Lord's assessment of our condition?"

Shadow and Substance

Carman — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:02:18 GMT

In a recent conversation, we were talking about the reality of western Christianity. We came to the conclusion that what passes for Christianity is mostly shadow with very little substance. It appears that western Christianity is a thin veneer spread over a lifestyle that reflects western comfort and security derived from a culture of wealth and consumerism.

Comfort and security are two conditions that are not listed by those who are seeking to advance the kingdom of God. The kingdom of God is not compatible with the self-centered lifestyle of western culture, thus conflict rages between the two, forcing us to choose one or the other. But one thing is certain, we can't serve both, though we still try, ignoring Jesus' words, "You can't serve God and riches."

In seeking to have the best of both worlds, we have sacrificed the kingdom, substituting in its place a hybrid Christianity that is foreign to the gospel of Jesus Christ and his kingdom. We have come full circle to first century Judaism that had become a hybrid of what God intended, becoming a religion steeped in tradition far more than the word of God. Neither is the present practice of Christianity what God intended, being a dim shadow of the reality of God's kingdom.

We are like the Old Testament priests described in Hebrews who served a copy and shadow of the real thing. Just as they served a man made tabernacle, so do most of us, serving man made structures instead of the heavenly reality. Thus we have chosen to live in the shadow rather than engage the substance of heaven coming to earth. Being content with our own superficial constructs, we forfeit the experience of the real thing.

However, just as that which the Old Testament priests served became obsolete, so has the present form of Christianity become obsolete. And in the words of Hebrews 8:13, "whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear." It will disappear in the glorious presence of the practice of God's New Covenant life by those who are not satisfied with the shadow, but will press in for the substance of God's kingdom.

Plural Leadership

Carman — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 09:21:17 GMT

This week I had the privilege of being part of a group that had the responsibility to make a decision concerning a ministry in our city that the four of us had a connection to in the past. The details of what was involved that demanded a decision are not important here. What are important are the process and the outcome.

I don't remember ever having a more significant awareness of the leading and presence of God in a decision making process than with this situation. There were no "prophetic words" that came forth, nor were there any other "supernatural manifestations" that contributed to the process and the outcome. It was just four people that needed and sought the wisdom of God as we went about the process of reaching a decision. We met twice in two days, with much discussion, before determining the course of action to take. Through the discussion, the Spirit guided us into that which he desired to incorporate to bring resolution. The outcome was definitive, without the slightest shred of ambiguity.

I believe we witnessed what God's intention is for leadership. It isn't based on position, title, or fame. None of the four of us qualify. However, we are elders, literally, not organizationally. We are older men who, through relationship, were asked for counsel. The plurality of leadership brought forth the wisdom of God that is impossible through a single individual.

The four of us experienced Malachi 3:16-18 this past week in the process:

"Then those who feared the Lord spoke to one another, and the Lord gave attention and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before Him for those who fear the Lord and esteem His name. 'And they will be Mine,' says the Lord of hosts, 'on the day that I prepare My own possession, and I will spare them as a man spares his own son who serves him.' So you will again distinguish between the righteous and the wicked, between one who serves God and one who does not serve Him."

Faith and Works

Carman — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 12:06:17 GMT

My friend Terry has a post on his blog that calls into question the motive behind a particular prayer gathering. The leaders of this gathering are calling people to come together to pray for revival for their city.

I have been involved in these kinds of prayer gatherings with the focus on revival and restoration for our city. Therefore I understand Terry's concern. Eventually, the number of those who were coming began to dwindle. Years of praying saw little, if any results, at least in the way we envisioned. Granted, God does not move in the way or time frame that we often expect. But there is a more important dimension to this.

In all of the enthusiastic praying that goes on for revival, I haven't seen those prayers backed up with action. It's easy to have a meeting to pray. It's quite another thing to put feet to those prayers, and that is what is missing in most cases. That was the missing ingredient with our prayer gatherings.

Once again, Jesus is our example. In Matthew 9 he tells his disciples to ask the Lord to send out laborers into the harvest, and then he does exactly that which he instructed his disciples to pray for. He was putting action to his words. He repeated this in Luke 10 when he sent out 70 more disciples.

Having our prayer meetings for revival without taking action is equivalent to faith without works, which James says is dead. Is it any wonder that people get discouraged after a prolonged season of praying and seeing no results? According to James, it's a dead faith that we're engaged in.

How often during these seasons of prayer for revival have these intercessors extended themselves in love to their friends and neighbors? Have their prayers changed their activity and involvement with those who need to hear and see the gospel incarnated? If their prayers for revival are not changing their lifestyle from independent individualism toward interdependent community, from self-centered consumerism to sacrificial service, from apathy toward others to a merciful love, then they are like those of Isaiah 58 and James 4 who ask and don't receive. Their actions don't match their words, which James defines as a dead faith.

No Lasting City Here

Carman — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 13:48:23 GMT

Last night I was in an extended phone conversation with two very good friends from Pittsburgh. The discussion began concerning a letter they had received from a pastoral couple seeking to bring together people from the Pittsburgh area to pray for revival. They were appealing to people to prioritize their schedules to gather with them the second Friday of each month for prayer and intercession.

This all sounds so right, yet the three of us all got negative vibes from this letter. After our conversation, and giving more thought to it, it seems to me that this is just another attempt by man to develop a ministry within the same system that God has rejected.

The writer of Hebrews makes this declaration: "For here we do not have a lasting city, but we are seeking the city which is to come" - Hebrews 13:14.

Rampant within this doomed system is the starting and building of new churches and ministries that are the "lasting cities" of their founders. Way too many of them have given themselves first and foremost to their own ministries and organizations rather than "seeking the city which is to come." Inbred within this system is the spirit of competition that thrives amidst all the ministries, churches and religious organizations in a given locale. This flies in the face of the unity of the Spirit that Jesus prayed for in John 17. But why should we be surprised when we see Christianity, as we know it, aligning itself with the state through incorporation and non-profit status for the purpose of tax breaks, resulting in a subservience to man's government.

Too often, after God launches us out into ministry, we usurp his authority by making it our own, giving a name to it whereby we identify and are identified with that name more than we are with the name of Christ. Did Jesus name his ministry? What about Paul, Peter, John, Barnabas or Timothy? Nowhere do we find in Scripture fancy ministry names. Even churches did not have names, simply being referred to as the church in Corinth, Antioch, Ephesus, etc., or designated by where they gathered, i.e. the church in Aquila and Priscilla's house. This greatly contributed to a sense of oneness amongst the believers.

All this may sound too radical. But I think we have not been radical enough. We adopt the ways and procedures of the world to advance the kingdom of God in the earth, contrary to the way Jesus did it. But if we are seeking the city that is to come, it requires a radical departure from the mindset of the present system.

Outside the Camp

Carman — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 14:29:40 GMT

Over the past several days I've been confronted from various sources concerning the state of the church in America. This culminated this morning with a couple of emails targeting corruption in the church, both spiritually and financially. Though there is much good in the American church, the pollution has so increased that the whole church is being labeled corrupt by society. It's the pollution that society smells, repulsing it from getting any closer so that the good can be observed.

The question that begs to be answered is, "How can the church be salt and light to the world in its present condition?" The answer is obvious: It can't. So a follow-up question is needed: "What can be done to remedy this deplorable state?" The answer to this question is so radical that it will be rejected outright.

I truly believe that we can't do anything to correct this problem. Only God can! And what I believe he will do is to start anew and afresh, outside of the Christian system that is so firmly entrenched as a holdover from Christendom. Two thousand years ago, God moved outside the religious system of Judaism to bring forth a new way of life through the Lord Jesus Christ. Now, he will move outside of the religious system of Christianity to bring forth once again this new way of life that has been largely forgotten.

The seeds of corruption are inherent within the present system of Christianity with its structures patterned after the world. The structures of the kingdom of God and the structures of the world have nothing in common. To mix the two only brings defilement. Therefore, God is issuing a call to those who have ears to hear, to come to Jesus outside the camp of institutional Christianity, that we might enter into the life and liberty of the kingdom, unfettered by the chains of religion. We will shed our prison uniforms with the stench of religious death, and be clothed with the righteousness and sweet aroma of Christ.

This will not be done without cost, for the very system from which we are departing will lash out, just as it did against Jesus. When threatened, there is no more vicious force than religion. By our exit, we are exposing and threatening this system, which seeks and thrives on ever expanding control. But "let us go out to Him outside the camp, bearing His reproach. For here we do not have a lasting city, but we are seeking the city which is to come" (Hebrews 13:13,14).

Broken Preaching

Carman — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 14:11:16 GMT

Len Hjalmarson takes a look at preaching in his post of 8-1-08 on his Next Reformation blog. He refers to a conversation he had with a brother who has been preaching for many years, who remarked that something was wrong with our model of preaching, commenting on Doug Pagitt's observation that "preaching is broken."

Len notes the well-known fact that we only remember 10% of what we hear. Yet week after week, this ineffective method of preaching sermons is perpetuated throughout the body of Christ. This is the primary means of communicating the gospel and making disciples. However, as Hjalmarson points out, communication is a two way process. If one is trying to communicate something important but has no idea what the hearer receives, then communication hasn't taken place.

Hjalmarson continues: "We are passive listeners. There is no opportunity to question or respond. The lecture hall conditions us to passivity, and that passivity extends to our response.

"The narrow context: isolated, individualistic, non-covenanted. We attend a lecture hall setting with hundreds of people we don't know. The context tells us that this is 'low commitment.' While the gathering may call itself a 'community,' we know that real community requires many significant connections and ongoing interaction from day to day. Without that experience, we are simply hearing one more voice from a person we don't know calling us to attend to something he may or may not be living into himself."

As I considered this whole thing of preaching and its context, it was obvious that the model we use creates hearers of the word, not doers. Every week, passive listening is reinforced in church after church at the expense of developing doers of the word. According to James, we are training people to delude themselves through our model of preaching when he writes, "But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves. For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks at his natural face in a mirror; for once he has looked at himself and gone away, he has immediately forgotten what kind of person he was" - James 1:22-24.

A Forgotten Element

Carman — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 12:18:41 GMT

As I consider the whole concept of community, it becomes obvious to me that we have a very narrow and distorted perspective, so much so that what we consider community really isn't much of a community at all. In this short post, it is impossible to deal with anything in depth. However, one facet of community, as it pertains to Christian community, seems to have been mostly overlooked - the context of place.

Living in a highly mobile culture has enabled people to scatter. The primary contributor enabling this mobility is the automobile. Add to this the technology of the telephone, and more recently cell phones, along with the Internet, and the whole issue of place appears to be irrelevant. But this is a deception that has wreaked havoc on Christianity.

The definition for community in the Christian sense is "sharing in common." The Greek word that is commonly translated as "church" means assembly, referring to gathering. We live in a culture that is scattered, and the people of God are no different. We are scattered, just the opposite of being gathered, in accordance with the meaning of "church." We have relegated church to a meeting that happens at least once a week, when in reality, the church is a people that shares life together.

It's nearly impossible to share life together in its fullness apart from the proximity of place. The people of God are called to be a contrast society, being a gathered people living in the midst of scattered people. In doing so, they exemplify the lifestyle of the kingdom of God. The lack of community in a given place obscures the life of the kingdom. Jesus exhorted us to seek first the kingdom of God. Without living in community in a given locale, we are hindering our efforts of seeking first his kingdom, for his kingdom functions as a corporate community, not scattered individuals.

Truth Seekers

Carman — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 14:55:38 GMT

It seems that everything is in such a state of flux that there is very little we can be sure of anymore. What used to be so certain has either passed from the scene or is undergoing such radical change that it is barely recognizable.

In the midst of such instability, there is an ongoing quest to find something to lay hold of that is reliable, something we can be assured of that will enable us to stand in the midst of continual and even cataclysmic change. Even the ability to know truth, the one constant in a sea of uncertainty, is being questioned in this postmodern age.

However, Jesus refutes the whole notion of not being able to know the truth with his pronouncement that "you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." Our ability to know the truth is directly related to our aggressiveness in seeking the truth. Jesus also declared if we seek, we will find. And that precisely is the problem. We don't seek truth. Instead, when our experience doesn't match what we profess to believe as truth and reality, we succumb to the lie that truth is unable to be known.

The other side of that coin is such an adamant stance on our limited understanding of the word of God as the whole truth that we cease to seek further understanding. The reality is that what we don't know of the truth far exceeds what we do know.

Too often we allow our shallow understanding of the word of God to be the final word, even when our experience at times seems to contradict our understanding of the word. God uses our experience as a doorway into greater understanding of the truth. It's sad when so many of us refuse to use the doorway of experience as a means of entering into greater understanding and knowledge of the truth. We fear that new illumination into the infinite truth of God will shatter what we have believed to be the whole truth.

Then there is the issue of pride. Pastors and teachers are especially vulnerable to this, being that new understanding of the truth will require them to retract and revamp what they have previously taught. Thus it is important that we hold our understanding of truth loosely, admitting that this is only what we presently understand as we look through this glass darkly.

Context

Carman — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 17:11:50 GMT

Among the definitions Webster gives for the word "context" is "the circumstances surrounding an act or event." I'm becoming more and more aware how feeble our understanding of the Scriptures is, especially the historical portions like the gospels, because there is little or no understanding of the context of the acts and events we read about. I'm well aware, that according to documented studies, most Christians do not read and study the Scriptures. Even those who do study seem to do it in a vacuum, with little or no knowledge of the times of which they read.

Just in the ministry of Jesus alone, knowing the context of his actions and teachings would shatter any unscriptural traditions that have been embraced as gospel. Being acquainted with the culture, the values, customs and languages of the day enables us to perceive a realistic flesh and blood Jesus, and not some elusive ethereal figure that is difficult to relate to.

My sense is, based on my experience, that too often we read the Bible and miss the depth of truth that is there because we are ignorant of the context. We read it from a narrow and isolated spiritual perspective instead of a whole life perspective.

I have this sneaking suspicion that we live our lives the same way we read the Bible, out of context. Whatever spirituality is present is manifested in a vacuum, apart from the everyday circumstances, whether it's job, family, entertainment, finances, recreation, relationships, etc.

Could it be that if we were to start reading the Scriptures in context, we would start to live them more in context?

From Relationship to Object

Carman — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 09:36:52 GMT

Len Hjalmarson refers to a selection from Leonard Sweet's book, Out of the Question...Into the Mystery: Getting Lost in the GodLife Relationship. Following is that excerpt from page 9 of the introduction.

"Western Christianity is largely belief based and church focused. It is concerned with landing on the right theology and doctrine and making sure everyone else toes the line. The Jesus trimtab, in contrast, is relationship based and world focused. It is concerned not so much with what you believe as with whom you are following. It is less invested in maintaining and growing an institution and more invested in Jesus's passion for saving the world.

"We have yanked ourselves from the soil of relationship with God so we can do the work of tidying things up. We are now sanitized and correct, factual and precise, but tragically bereft of relationship. We are disconnected from our source so that we have become sterile. We may be doctrinally correct, but we have become spiritual cadavers."

Sweet introduces this portion saying:

"Given the universal hunger for relationship, and the church's habit of pushing relationship to the back of the bus, we must answer this question: How did we lose the Jesus trimtab? The simple - but precise - answer is that it got lost in the shift of focus from relationship to object.

"The first Christians didn't proclaim a creed or a statement of faith; they didn't demand assent to a list of facts; they proclaimed the Cross; they proclaimed the Resurrection; they proclaimed the coming kingdom of Christ. They proclaimed Jesus. Faith is not invested in creeds, or invested in institutions, but vetted in relationships."

Jesus and Christianity

Carman — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 11:16:33 GMT

I was engaged in a conversation last weekend with someone I knew to be a dedicated Christian. In the course of the conversation, she said, "I reject Christianity!" I was taken aback by this statement, until she followed it up by saying, "I'm committed to following Jesus."
As we continued, she related how she was seriously considering dropping out of the local church she attends. She was displeased with some of the things she saw occurring, which were not immoral or fraudulent, but were just the norm for churches steeped in Christian tradition.

This is just one more person of the increasing number of people I'm encountering who are disillusioned with their "church" experience, resulting in their departure from a local church congregation. There is a growing restlessness among followers of Christ who have been relegated to a passive existence in the local church, except for whatever task they can do to perpetuate the status quo of the congregation.

The life provided by the typical church is a far cry from that which Jesus described for those who follow him. He required a denial of self for those who chose to become his disciples. To live sacrificially is a foreign message to western Christianity. If one is to be engaged in God's mission of advancing his kingdom in the earth, it will not be a sedentary lifestyle in a church pew with an occasional two-week mission trip, but will be a lifestyle of being sent out continually.

Jesus chose the twelve that they might be with him that he would send them out to preach. However, the conventional mindset in the church is to have people with us indefinately, giving little or no thought at all of sending them out. Instead of growing our churches, our desire should be to expand God's kingdom. This can only be done by sending out, not hoarding unto ourselves.

Fish Bowl or Ocean

Carman — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 10:14:29 GMT

Following is an excerpt from Len Hjalmarson's post of 7/1 on Next Reformation.

"In the closing chapters of the Forgotten Ways Alan Hirsch uses a number of word-pictures to describe the challenge of a changing environment, including the "fish bowl" analogy (a closed system). Picture "Finding Nemo" where the safety and stability (living death) of aquarium life is contrasted with the expanse and adaptive challenge of the untamed ocean.
    A fish bowl or aquarium is a stable environment. It is safe and predictable (and relatively boring) and requires constant maintenance in order to survive. Food and oxygen must be supplied from external sources. The system is stable but stability hangs by a thread (turn off the air pump or quit supplying food or change the temperature) and there are no natural stressors.
    The ocean is a somewhat different environment! It is always changing, and always dangerous.
    In the industrial age we had relative stability and predictability and our churches became fish-bowls. We could drop a new fish in from time to time and pretend we were having exciting times, but for the most part there was little change and no perceived need to change. Suddenly the fish bowl has been dropped into the ocean - the boundaries and rules have changed, and we now face all kinds of adaptive challenges to our own survival. These stressors will either make us stronger - or destroy us - depending on our ability to respond."

After reading this post, I thought of Jesus' words as he sent out his disciples, "Go your ways; behold I send you out as lambs in the midst of wolves." He sends us out into the dangerous environment of the ocean to advance his kingdom. The safety of the fish bowl is not the place to advance the kingdom. Yet that has been the norm for most of my life. The major effort and activity has gone on within the fish bowl.

The full dynamics of life and vitality only take place in the ocean. The limitations of the fish bowl deprive its inhabitants of the full orb of life - the abundant life they have been created to experience.

Two Ministries

Carman — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 11:53:07 GMT

Lindsay's comment to the 6/20 post, "Which Spirit", reveals the difference between the ministries of life and death. His response to his friend, who apparently functions as one of the doctrinal police, was a gem. It vividly illustrates the difference between the ministry of the letter and the ministry of the Spirit. The first is death while that of the Spirit is life. The ministry of death is that of the Old Covenant while the ministry of life is that of the New Covenant.

The ministry of the doctrinal police is defined by Paul in 1 Corinthians 3:9 as the "ministry of condemnation." Personally, I've never seen anyone edified or receive new life through this kind of ministry - the ministry of the letter.

It's obvious that in reading The Shack, Lindsay's focus was toward the Father while that of his friend may have been concerned with correct doctrine. Because of his focus, Lindsay experienced the love of the Father in a new and deeper way. I don't know what his friend experienced from the book other than finding fault with doctrine that he didn't agree with. It's apparent who was edified and strengthened.

There is yet another contrast which I see between Lindsay and his friend. It's seen in the message to the church in Ephesus in Revelation 2. The Lord has seen their zeal for that which is true and not false, which is good. However, what he has against them is the fact that they have left their first love. Their love for correct doctrine resulting in the exposure of that which is false had replaced their love for the Lord.

We all need to take heed lest the good things we are engaged in replace our love for Father God. It happens so gradually and subtly that we're not aware of it. We think we are engaged in God's mission when we are actually giving ourselves to our own interest. Seeking the love of the Father and dwelling in that love makes all else dim by comparison.

Flower Garden

Carman — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 12:07:49 GMT

This morning I was reflecting on yesterday's experience of joining with others in planting a community flower garden in our neighborhood. I can't say that I've ever experienced a sense of oneness and community more than I did yesterday. There was a camaraderie that was present that I have seldom experienced, within or outside of "Christian" circles. Both of these "circles" were as equally represented as possible among the fifteen people that worked together to bring this garden, which was a vacant lot, into reality.

In considering the implications of all that took place in this effort, the prevailing thought is that this endeavor far exceeded the mere planting of a flower garden. The physical labor that was expended contributed toward the advancement of the kingdom of God. It was the restoration of a tiny portion of God's creation, bringing forth beauty that had been absent for so long on this particular property.

But it wasn't just the flowers and the bulbs that were planted, but seeds of the kingdom of God were planted at the same time in the soil of human hearts. The ambience was evidence of the Spirit of God hovering over the whole scene. Statements and conversations testified to the Spirit's leading and guidance. The greater yield out of yesterday's experience, I believe, will be spiritual more than physical. But the physical precedes the spiritual, as Paul notes in 1 Corinthians 15:46, "However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural; then the spiritual."

I wonder if we have too often overlooked the natural in our zeal to minister for the purpose of manifesting the kingdom of God in our midst. The process that culminates in the realization of God's righteous reign in life, be it individual or corporate, includes both the natural and the spiritual. Yesterday I saw people who make no profession of a personal faith in Jesus Christ, demonstrate an enthusiasm for the kingdom activity of restoration. Might we see a greater response to our message if it was the full gospel of the kingdom, which Jesus preached, rather than just the tiny tidbit of being forgiven of sin so that our eternal destiny is heaven instead of hell?

Church and Community

Carman — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 17:18:54 GMT

Is there a distinction between church and community? Are they one and the same or two different entities? Your answer ultimately will depend on your observations and experiences.

The answers to the opening questions can be both yes and no with both answers being correct. Looking at the church in the first century as recorded in the pages of Scripture, we would surmise that the church was a community. Therefore it is one and the same thing. However, much of our personal experience would disagree with that assessment.

Obviously, there has been a dramatic shift over the centuries that would cause us to answer the question differently today than we would in the first century. The word "community" is called fellowship in Scripture, which means sharing in common. With this definition in mind, we can begin to see why there is a difference between church and community.

The experience in the conventional 21st century church is not one of sharing in common. Only a handful of the members share, while the great majority sit passively, doing only what they are told to do when they're told to do it. This is the norm for the weekly gatherings. For most, the weekly gathering is the only time they are together with others in the church. This obviously does not fit the definition of community.

True community is a life shared in all respects. It is not limited to the spiritual dimension. In the everyday ordinariness of life, those who dwell in community with one another participate together in the circumstances and activities of life throughout the week, not just in a once-a-week meeting.

Can church and community become one and the same? Absolutely! However, it will take a paradigm shift and intentional effort to change the individualistic lifestyle to one of community. Can it be done? Yes! Will it be done? That can only be answered by each person when confronted with the challenge.