Sentralized: WHY ANOTHER CONFERENCE?

So why attend another conference? Two reasons. First, we believe there is a need to continue to bring clarity to the missional conversation. Unfortunately, the use of missional terminology has become confusing in many circles. Some view “missional” as the latest church growth strategy, or a better way of doing church evangelism. Others see missional as a means to mobilize church members to do missions more effectively. While still others believe missional is simply the latest Christian buzz word that will soon pass when the next trendy topic comes along.

However, we are convinced that those who believe missional is merely an add-on to current church activities, or perhaps even a passing fad prevalent only among church leaders, have simply not fully grasped the magnitude of the missional conversation. While it may sound like hyperbole; the move towards missional involves no less than a complete and thorough recalibration of the form and function of the church of Jesus. By bringing together some of today’s best missional thinkers; we desire to assist God’s people in thinking deeply about God’s mission in the world.

Second, we want to ensure the missional conversation moves beyond theory. We want to inspire and propel the church to engage in God’s mission in life changing ways. That is why a significant feature of the conference will focus on practical engagement; through the stories and personal examples of some of the best missional practitioners around.

If you desire to gain a clearer, deeper understanding of the missional conversation, but would also benefit from knowing how to engage your local context, then join us for a Sentralized regional event!

WHO SHOULD COME?

Sentralized is designed for anyone who calls him or her self a Christ follower. It's the perfect learning opportunity for pastors, church planters, individuals, and teams of church members that are working through the issues and ideas of missional living, learning, and leading.

For more details go to: http://www.sentralized.com. 

Safety – Good for the Swedes, NOT for the Saints

By: Jim Mustain 

Swedish car manufacturer Volvo has built its reputation on safety. Want a safe car, drive a Volvo. Car enthusiasts typecast Volvo’s conservative and uninspiring cars by saying, “Volvo sells school teachers cars shaped like bricks”. Ouch!

Playing it safe has resulted in Volvo being far from the “top ten list” when it comes to car sales in the US. Truth is they own less than 1% of the car sales market.

Is merely “playing it safe” an overall good strategy for doing life?

Empirically speaking it doesn’t seem to be a stellar marketing genius for the Swedes. But changing gears and more to my point, what about for the “saints”? Is a risk averse posture, “playing it safe”, what God is calling us to be and do? I think NOT!

Some of us equate playing it safe with being sensible and prudent. But here’s my two cents. Most of the time, it’s something else all together. The real problem isn’t safety or risk at all. The real problem is fear.

What if I were to tell you that there was a little tiny part of your brain that pre-wires you to avoid risk and play it safe? Well, there actually is. It’s called the amygdala and it plays a big part in what motivates us to behave the way we do.

One of the functions of the amygdala is processing emotions – particularly those associated with survival. Like the emotion of fear for instance. When you are in a familiar situation that you know to be safe, your amygdala is happy and secure – and so are you. But when something new or seemingly risky comes along, the amygdala kicks into high gear. It lets you know, “Hey, we’re outside our comfort zone here. Retreat! Withdrawal!” Sometimes that reaction can save your life. Other times it can hold you back from a more fulfilling life.

The Scriptures teach that Jesus came to give us a full life, not a safe life. (John 10:10). We see where risk and investment are rewarded, not safety. (Matt. 25:14) Our invitation is not to the familiar or comfortable, but to the unfamiliar and outcast (Luke 14:12)

A quote I ran across from my recent readings has fueled my God imaginations and encouraged my inner risk taker. It is attributed to John A. Shedd in his book Salt From My Attic and says,

“A ship in harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are built for.”

What are we built for? Safety? Or risking it all for the better good…for the Kingdom…for the King?

See you out at sea!

Jipped

DO YOU REMEMBER THE WORD jipped? It’s not in my dictionary, but I think it’s one of the best words I’ve ever heard, kind of like ubiquitous, caveat, or robust—words that not only feel good rolling off your tongue but that carry a lot of meaning. To me, jipped means to get short-sheeted, shortchanged, ripped off, dissed, deceived, or intentionally screwed. I remember the first time I got jipped. I was seven, and I was at a local ice cream shop in Chicago. I had ordered one scoop of chocolate ice cream on a waffle cone. When the lady handed it to me, I remember having to stick my head all the way down into the waffle cone to find my ice cream.

My friend yelled, “Man, you got jipped.” It was the first time I’d heard the word, and I immediately forgot about my lack of ice cream and just sat there basking in how cool the word sounded. I recall riding my bike all the way home, saying “jipped” about forty times. After that, I started to say it to everyone. My mom grounded me because I used it so much around the house. “Hugh Tom, clean your room.” “Oh, man, that’s jipped.” After she scooped me some dinner, I’d yell, “Man, I got jipped,” just to get to use the word. This went on for few months, until I discovered the word chick. Jipped went on vacation until my freshman year in college.

It made its return when I was visiting a charismatic church by our campus. I remember being floored as the pastor talked about the Holy Spirit and its active working in our lives. While walking back to the campus, my friend, concerned about how I would process my first charismatic church experience, asked, “What did you think?” I’m sure he wanted me to comment on the old farmer dancing in the aisles and the lady singing a prophecy about “eagles and vipers” in the middle of the offertory. I didn’t comment on that. I said, “I got jipped.” “What do you mean?” he asked. 

I went on to tell him that in twelve years of being a Christian, I had never heard one person or pastor mention anything about this Holy Spirit guy or his pet bird. Seriously, I had never been taught about one of the primary aspects of God! I just kept mumbling, “I got jipped.” The next time I remember being jipped was in 2002. I was reading Dallas Willard’s Divine Conspiracy. In this great work, Dallas cracks wide open the concept of the gospel and reminds us that it was never just “the gospel.” It is the “Gospel of the Kingdom of God.” That is, the gospel was about something really big, something different, and something that is to be experienced, not just spoken about.

This gospel, according to Dallas, is about an aspect of God’s divine life that is available to us now, not just after death. After reading and seeing the gospel in an entirely new light, my heart started to race, and I sprang out of my chair and yelled, “Dog gonnit . . . I got jipped again!” The Short-Sheeted Gospel Do you think it might be possible that the primary reason Christianity in the West is in such marked decline is simply due to the fact that we don’t know what the gospel is?

I know that sounds akin to telling professional basketball players that they don’t know how to dribble, or a librarian that he doesn’t read very well. But the church’s results of getting positive responses out of our gospel presentations begs the question, “Do we actually know what the gospel is?” About five years ago, I was in Sydney, Australia, working with about twelve young church planting teams. These were very bright, attractive, nontraditional-looking leaders. The first thing I asked was, “Why are you planting your church?”

I gave them a couple of minutes to think and write down their responses. When we came back together, I asked them to share. Their unanimous response was, “So that people will go to heaven.” “Fine,” I said. “Now describe how people are going to get to heaven.” After some debate, they all agreed that people would get to heaven by hearing the gospel and then responding appropriately. My next question was, “How are people going to hear the gospel?” Their response: “Through our preaching.” “Fine,” I said. “And what will their appropriate response be and how will you know they made that response?” Answer: “They will pray a prayer to receive God into their hearts.” “Where will this transaction take place?” I asked.

They all liked the idea that it could happen anywhere, but after a little prodding, they admitted that they see most of this happening after a sermon in their church. After getting their responses, I gave them one more opportunity to change or adjust their answers, but they decided to stick with what they had. We then took a Sanka instant coffee and Vegemite toast break (something I hope never to relive), and when we came back together I summarized their idea of the gospel. “So let me play back what you said was the reason and the means of planting this church. You are going to start a church so that you can preach the gospel, hope they believe your message, pray a prayer, and go to heaven. Correct?”

They smiled and sheepishly nodded in unison. I pushed a bit more and asked, “What is the gospel?” Their response: “The message of God’s love and forgiveness of our sins and the hope of eternal life.” “So let me keep going,” I said. “The gospel is a systematic set of beliefs or doctrines about God, sin, heaven, and hell that you try to get someone to buy into?” Crowd still nodding. “So salvation is viewed as a gift you get when you . . . pray a prayer?” They nodded like a bunch of puppies watching a yoyo. “So a Christian is someone who has prayed a prayer, and a good Christian is someone who has prayed a prayer and consistently comes to your church, gives money, and generally stops doing all the ‘biggie’ sins.” They still nodded. “So a non-Christian, someone who is doomed to hell for eternity, is someone who hasn’t . . . prayed the prayer?” All of a sudden it got a bit quiet. I kept going. “Evangelism, then, must be the process of trying to get someone to pray a prayer.

Heaven, this beautiful eternal wildly awesome place, is only for those who have prayed a prayer. And hell, the fire, gnashing of teeth, eternal torment, is for everyone who didn’t come to your church, hear your sermon, and pray the prayer?” By now, I was visibly emotional, as was the wife of one of the church planters. Many of the other leaders were looking down at their feet. Some had put their hands over their faces, and we just sat there quietly. “I have to be honest.” I said after collecting myself. “I would not be interested in coming to your church if that is all you’ve got going.” I was saddened but not surprised, as we have heard the same anemic version of the gospel story for so long here in United States. Jipped again!

The good news is now bad news . . . or no news. Jesus knew that the only people who would find his news to be bad news would be the people who didn’t want to lose control of their lives or “come to the light,” as he put it. Everyone else would view his gospel as an attractive alternative to the life they were experiencing. There will always be people who are, at a heart level, completely resistant to Christ. But this book isn’t about them. This book is about the millions of people who are openhearted and curious about life and God but who are honestly not finding goodness in the good news that we talk about and that, at times, has been forced down their collective throats.

We have to be honest with ourselves and realize that if the message isn’t attractive, and the people of God aren’t attractive, then we must not be telling the story right, or we aren’t living the story correctly. Maybe we forgot the story, or even worse, maybe no one ever told us the whole story. Maybe you got jipped, too. If so, you may also have jipped others. 

Excerpt from Tangible Kingdom - By Hugh Halter

Jesus - The Original Barista

It was displayed in plain sight. I’m sure I must have seen it before. However on this particular evening while waiting on my next appointment, it caught both my attention and curiosity. Three short phrases carefully crafted together. One empowering mantra displayed in over 21,000 community gathering places worldwide— one person, one cup and one neighborhood at a time.

What corporate citizen aspires to the lofty dreams of, “… inspiring and nurturing the human spirit – one person, one cup and one neighborhood at a time.” Starbucks of course! (check out their really cool mission video https://vimeo.com/62275792)

In the #1 New York Times bestselling book Onward: How Starbucks Fought For It’s Life Without Losing Its Soul, Howard Schultz the CEO of Starbucks recounts the story and leadership lessons behind the global coffee company’s comeback.

In 2008, Schultz decided to return as the CEO of Starbucks to help restore its financial health and bring the company back to its core values. In Onward, he shares this remarkable story, revealing how, during one of the most tumultuous economic periods in American history, Starbucks again achieved profitability and sustainability without sacrificing humanity.

Living out the below core values, the Starbucks green and white logo is known worldwide.

• Creating a culture of warmth and belonging, where everyone is welcome.
• Acting with courage, challenging the status quo and finding new ways to grow our company and each other.
• Being present, connecting with transparency, dignity and respect.
• Delivering our very best in all we do, holding ourselves accountable for results.
• We are performance driven, through the lens of humanity.

My reflections are two — Wow and Whoa!

Wow! — Regardless of person or product, I love dreamers and doers and those determined to develop something of value and worth. Way to go Starbucks! I will gladly continue to leverage your free space and great coffee and welcoming environment as I strategize kingdom plans, disciple followers of Jesus, and engage in gospel conversations. Really, thanks!

Whoa! — As in “let’s stop or slow down” for a minute to get our bearings. IS THIS NOT what the church is supposed to be about? Swap out a few words, church for company, and people for performance, and I could easily adopt Starbucks values for my own.

I love, and believe Jesus loves words like, warmth and welcoming, and connecting with transparency, dignity and respect.

Could it be that Jesus was the original barista? Get that picture in your mind next time you walk up to a Starbucks counter!

But seriously, was it not Jesus who modeled offering a “cup” of cold water in His name? (Mark 9:41) Was is not Jesus who showed “dignity and respect” for the woman at the well? (John 4) Was it not Jesus who moved into (and loved) His “neighborhood”. (John 1:14)

In an unprecedented era of downturn in church engagement, in an effort to move “Onward: fighting for its life, without loosing its soul” — perhaps the church could reflect, repent, and return to the model of Jesus. Thanks Starbucks for the reminder. I think “I’ll see you and raise you” (and keep using your free wifi)! 

Be blessed,

Jim

A Community Pastor

What is Missional?

By: Brad Brisco

For nine years I taught a course on evangelism at a small Christian college. There was an exercise I would do every year to illustrate to the students just how inwardly focused most churches are. I would divide the white board into two large columns. I asked the class to list all of the programs and ministries that their church had for those inside the church. In other words, activities just for church members. They would quickly create a very long list of things like Sunday morning worship, Sunday school, small groups, prayer groups, men’s ministry, women’s ministry, children’s ministry, sports leagues, special fellowships—you get the picture. Occasionally a student might argue that some of the activities were open to those outside the church, but inevitably they agreed that each of the activities was tailored with church people in mind.

The next step was to list the ministries that their church had exclusively for those outside the church family. Beyond that, I would ask them to consider any training that the church provided for members to equip them to engage those outside the church. The contrast was striking. In more than one case a student couldn’t name a single activity that his or her church had for those outside the church walls. All of the church’s planning, finances and energy were spent exclusively on church members.

The vast majority of churches in America are not missional. Despite this reality, some people believe using the phrase “missional church” is redundant. “Of course the church is missional,” they quip. The truth is that it should be redundant, but it isn’t. The church in North America, generally speaking, is clearly not missional. Both individually and collectively, it simply does not consistently live out of its missional identity. Please don’t say that missional church language is redundant. It is not.

So how are we to best understand the language of missional church? Unfortunately the word missional today seems to be connected to just about everything in the church world. Missional leadership. Missional evangelism. Missional youth ministry. Missional parenting. Missional denominations. Even missional clothing! Moreover, people are using the word missional to describe “new” ways to think about church growth, outreach, social justice and discipleship.

But if we reject this overuse, what then does the word missional mean? Moving forward, how are we to best understand it? I usually respond by saying that I have a short answer and a long answer to this question.

The short answer is that missional is simply the adjective form of the noun missionary. Therefore when we use the language of “missional church,” the word missional is used to describe the church as a missionary entity. The church doesn’t just send missionaries; the church is the missionary.

Now for the long answer. When considering a more theologically rooted definition of the word missional we need to examine three chief distinctions. These are the theological foundations of a missional approach, which I believe must serve as the starting point for the journey. Each point deliberately confronts long-held assumptions most Christians have about God, the church and mission. Without serious attention to each of these three points, the missional journey will inevitably end prematurely.

So what are those three foundations, or paradigm shifts that need to be considered? They include:

1. Recapturing the missionary nature of God and the church

2. Engaging in the posture of incarnational presence

3. Understanding the why and how of participating in the Missio Dei.

If you and your church would like to process, not only these three keys paradigm shifts, but also learn practical steps to move a church into engaging God’s mission more fully, then consider joining the Forge tribe for a missional pre-conference at this year’s Exponential East event.

What is Missional - Part 2

In part one I explained that when I am asked to define the word “missional” I usually say that I have a short answer, and a long answer. The short answer is that the word missional is simply the adjective form of the noun missionary. The long answer involves considering three theological distinctions that I believe are at the core of understanding the idea of missional church. 

The first shift in thinking that must take place relates to our understanding of the missionary nature of God and the church. When we think of the attributes of God, we most often think of characteristics such as holiness, sovereignty, wisdom, justice, love and so on. Rarely do we think of God’s missionary nature. But Scripture teaches that God is a missionary God—a sending God.

What’s more, the Bible is a missionary book. Scripture is generated by and is all about God’s mission activity. The word mission is derived from the Latin missio, meaning “sending.” And it is the central theme describing God’s activity throughout all of history to restore creation. While often overlooked, one remarkable illustration in Scripture of God’s missionary nature is found in the “sending language” that is prominent throughout the Bible.

From God’s sending of Abram in Genesis 12 to the sending of his angel in Revelation 22, there are literally hundreds of examples that portray God as a missionary, sending God. In the Old Testament God is presented as the sovereign Lord who sends in order to express and complete his redemptive mission. The Hebrew verb “to send,” shelach, is found nearly eight hundred times. While it is most often used in a variety of non-theological sayings and phrases, it is employed more than two hundred times with God as the subject of the verb. In other words, it is God who commissions and it is God who sends.

Perhaps the most dramatic illustration of sending in the Old Testament is found in Isaiah 6. In this passage we catch a glimpse of God’s sending nature: “Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, ‘Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?’” To this Isaiah responds, “Here am I! Send me!” (Is 6:8). Further, in the prophetic books it is interesting to note that the Old Testament ends with God promising through the words of the prophet Malachi to send a special messenger as the forerunner of the Messiah: “I will send my messenger” (Mal 3:1). Then the New Testament begins with the arrival of that messenger in the person of John the Baptist, described in the Gospels as a man sent by God (John 1:6).

In the New Testament, sending language is found not only in the Gospels but also throughout the book of Acts and each of the Epistles. The most comprehensive collection of sending language, however, is found in the Gospel of John, where the word send or sent is used nearly sixty times. The majority of uses refer to the title of God as “one who sends” and of Jesus as the “one who is sent.” All the way through John’s Gospel we see God the Father sending the Son. God the Father and the Son sending the Spirit. And God the Father, Son and Spirit sending the church. In the final climactic sending passage in John’s Gospel, Jesus makes clear that he is not only sent by the Father, but now he is the sender, as he sends the disciples: “As the Father has sent me, I am sending you” (Jn 20:21).

With this sentence Jesus is doing much more than drawing a vague parallel between his mission and ours. Deliberately and precisely he is making his mission the model for ours. Our understanding of the church’s mission must flow from our understanding of Jesus’ mission as reflected in the Gospels. Geoffrey Harris states it this way:

The Gospels reflect the fact that mission is the essence of the Church’s life and not just an aspect of it. The life of Jesus is invariably represented as being enacted in the world at large (and not in religious settings), among ordinary people of all sorts (and not just among believers) and, in particular, as reaching out to those beyond the normal scope and influence of the religious establishment Jesus’ early nickname, “friend of sinners,” is transformed in the Gospels from a term of abuse into a badge of honour and respect.

The sending language in Scripture not only emphasizes the missionary nature of God, but it also stresses the importance of understanding the church as a sent, missionary body. God is a missionary God who sends a missionary church. As Jesus was sent into the world, we too are sent into the world.

At the core of the missional conversation is the idea that a genuine missional posture is a sending rather than an attractional one. My friend Linda Burgquist likes to point out that Jesus did not assign the seventy to become a core group that would function as a new “come-to” structure; he instead sent them out by twos to engage the surrounding towns and villages. Likewise, we should be sending the people in the church out among the people of the world, rather than attempting to attract the people of the world in among the people of the church. This is a crucial distinction because most people in the church today do not think of their congregation in a sending, missionary manner.

The church is to see itself as a people called and sent by God to participate in his redemptive mission for the world. The nature of the church—rooted in the very nature of God—is missionary. Rather than seeing ourselves primarily as a sending body, we must see ourselves as a body that is sent. The church still gathers, but the difference is that we gather not for our own sake, but for the sake of others. Or better yet, for the sake of God’s mission. We come together regularly as a collective body to be equipped through teaching, prayer, worship, and study and then to be sent back out into the world as an agent of the King. 

What is Missional - Part 1

For nine years I taught a course on evangelism at a small Christian college. There was an exercise I would do every year to illustrate to the students just how inwardly focused most churches are. I would divide the white board into two large columns. I asked the class to list all of the programs and ministries that their church had for those inside the church. In other words, activities just for church members. They would quickly create a very long list of things like Sunday morning worship, Sunday school, small groups, prayer groups, men’s ministry, women’s ministry, children’s ministry, sports leagues, special fellowships—you get the picture. Occasionally a student might argue that some of the activities were open to those outside the church, but inevitably they agreed that each of the activities was tailored with church people in mind.

The next step was to list the ministries that their church had exclusively for those outside the church family. Beyond that, I would ask them to consider any training that the church provided for members to equip them to engage those outside the church. The contrast was striking. In more than one case a student couldn’t name a single activity that his or her church had for those outside the church walls. All of the church’s planning, finances and energy were spent exclusively on church members.

The vast majority of churches in America are not missional. But despite this reality, some people believe using the phrase “missional church” is redundant. “Of course the church is missional,” they quip. The truth is that it should be redundant, but it isn’t. The church in North America, generally speaking, is clearly not missional. Both individually and collectively, it simply does not consistently live out of its missional identity. Please don’t say that missional church language is redundant. It is not.

So how are we to best understand the language of missional church? Unfortunately the word missional today seems to be connected to just about everything in the church world. Missional leadership. Missional evangelism. Missional youth ministry. Missional parenting. Missional denominations. Even missional clothing! Moreover, people are using the word missional to describe “new” ways to think about church growth, outreach, social justice and discipleship. My friend Lance Ford likes to refer to this crazy use of terminology as “applying missional paint.” Buy a can of missional paint and brush it on to whatever the church is already doing. Just like that, it’s missional!

But if we reject this overuse, what then does the word missional mean? Moving forward, how are we to best understand it? I usually respond by saying that I have a short answer and a long answer to this question.

The short answer is that missional is simply the adjective form of the noun missionary. Therefore when we use the language of “missional church,” the word missional is used to describe the church as a missionary entity. The church doesn’t just send missionaries; the church is the missionary.

Now for the long answer. When considering a more theologically rooted definition of the wordmissional we need to examine at least three chief distinctions. These are the theological foundations of a missional approach, which I believe must serve as the starting line to our journey. Each point deliberately confronts long-held assumptions most Christians have about God, the church and mission. Without serious attention to each of these three points, the missional journey will inevitably end prematurely.

Over the next few days I want to share what I believe we need to consider when fully understanding the idea of missional church. I hope you join the discussion.

What is a Third Place?

Sociologist Ray Oldenburg coined the phrase “Third Place” in his 1989 bookThe Great Good Place. The extended sub-title of the book helps to clarify the concept; Cafes, Coffee Shops, Bookstores, Bars, Hair Salons and Other Hangouts at the Heart of a Community.” 

But what exactly is a Third Place? According to Oldenburg the first place is our home and the people with whom we live. The second place is where we work and the place we spend the majority of our waking hours. A Third Place is a public setting that hosts regular, voluntary, and informal gatherings of people. It is a place to relax and have the opportunity to know and be known by others. It is a place people like to “hang out.” Oldenburg identifies eight characteristics that Third Places share:

• Neutral Ground. People are free to come and go as they please. There are no time requirements or invitations needed. Much of our lives in first places and second places are structured, but not so in Third Places.

• Act as a Leveler. People from all walks of life gather in Third Places. There are no social or economic status barriers.

• Conversation is the Main Activity. The talk is lively, stimulating, colorful, and engaging.

• Assessable and Accommodating. They tend to be conveniently located, often within walking distance of one’s home.

• There are Regulars. It is easy to recognize that many patrons are regulars at the establishment. But unlike other places, newcomers are welcomed into the group.

• Low Profile. As a physical structure, they are typically plain and unimpressive in appearance.

• Mood is Playful. With food, drink, games, and conversation present, the mood is light and playful. The mood encourages people to stay longer and to come back repeatedly.

• A Home Away From Home. At their core they are places where people feel at home. They feel like they belong there, and typically have a sense of ownership.

Why is it so important for Christ followers to understand the concept of Third Places? Because the vast majority of people in the United States are living isolated, relationally impoverished lives. And Third Places offer an opportunity for missionally minded people to do life in proximity to others. We must take the time to identify where the Third Places are in our setting. Where do people gather to spend time with others? Where are the coffee houses, cafes, pubs and other hangouts?

But in addition to the typical Third Places as described by Oldenburg, what are some “atypical” places where people congregate? Think of places such as libraries, parks, farmer’s markets, workout centers, etc. We may need to “think outside the box” when identifying where people gather. But once identified we must seek ways to engage those places. This will involve embedding our lives incarnationally into Third Places, listening and learning where God is at work, and asking how we can participate in what God is doing. 

Where do you recognize a sense of isolation or loneliness in your neighborhood? Do you yourself experience feelings of isolation from your neighbors? How does the Gospel, the good news of the Kingdom, address the issue of isolation? Do you believe the sense of community is increasing or decreasing in your neighborhood? Why? What are the easily identified Third Places in your neighborhood?

Adapted from Missional Essentials

Dangerous Living: How are you Living Dangerously for God?

There are Forge Hubs all over the country and world that are on the edge of the what's next for the church. "Reaching the 60% is something that is needed, but who is actually out there doing it? Where do you start? Start, with a walk in your neighborhood. Be open to who God brings into your path and meet them right where they are.  It is really that simple." Jeri Lewis, Hub Director, Middletown, Ohio and Forge National Team, Story Teller

Hugh Halter on Being Bi-Vocational as a Church Planter

Relationships Happen in the Margins

The importance of presence is a common theme that runs throughout the culture of Forge. We strive to understand the necessity of spending time with people. One practical expression of presence involves the simple act of neighboring. When we carve out time and space to get to know our neighbors – know them by name, eat and drink with them, listen to their stories and tell our own – we are practicing the ministry of presence. But why is it so often difficult to spend time with people that live in close proximity? What gets in the way of sharing life with those that live on the same street as we do? What keeps us from being radically hospitable?

While there are multiple reasons behind the lack of relational vitality in our neighborhoods, I believe one of the most prominent issues has to do with the lack of margin in our lives. In the book titled Margins: Restoring Emotional, Physical, Financial, and Time Reserves to Overloaded Lives, author Richard Swenson uses the illustration of the margin found on the pages of a book as a metaphor for the way our lives should be organized. You never see the words on a page run to the very edge of the paper. Neither should we live our lives constantly pushed to the very edge. In other words, there must be space, or margin, around our lives where we not only experience rest and be refreshment, but where relationships can be birthed and cultivated. Swenson writes:

Margin is like oxygen— everybody needs some. If we have too little, we suffer from the shortage. If we have too much, the excess will not benefit us additionally. But having the right amount permits us to breathe freely.

Margin is a space, specifically the space between our load and our limits. It is this space that enhances vitality and resilience. It is this space that guarantees sustainability. It is in this space where healing occurs, where our batteries are recharged, where our relationships are nourished, and where wisdom is found. Without margin, both rest and contemplation are but theoretical concepts, unaffordable and unrealistic.

We do not follow two inches behind the next car on the interstate— that would leave no margin for error. We do not allow only two minutes to change planes in Chicago— that would be foolish in the extreme. We do not load boats until they are nearly submerged— that would invite disaster. Why then do we insist on leaving no buffer, no space, no reserves in our day-to-day? 

Why then is creating and maintaining margin so important? As Swenson states, margin provides sustainability for the hard work of mission. But equally important, margin creates space for the ministry of presence to occur. Truly loving our neighbors cannot be added to overburdened lives. I like to say that relationships happen in the margins. So where do you need to cultivate margin? What might you need to stop doing to create margin in your life? 

- Brad Brisco

Whisperers and Storytellers - Part 2

From Whispers and Storytellers Part 1: "The traditional method of reaching not-yet-Christians has been to bludgeon them into a recognition of how broken they are. To crush their spirit. To tear them down and bring them to their knees. There’s very little genuine friendship happening. When churches do befriend unbelievers it’s often so that they might become Christians. And it’s assumed that the way to become Christian is for them to see how truly bad they are. Surely, not-yet-Christians see how disingenuous this is." 

So how can we whisper into the deepest longings of not-yet-christains?

We can do this by exciting curiosity through storytelling…. 

In Jesus's parables he didn’t seek to explain the words of previous prophets or teachers. There was often no reference to Yahweh. What kind of biblical teaching was this! Stories about a father who welcomes his wayward son back, a woman who turns her home upside down looking for a lost coin, references to shrewd business managers, foolish farmers, and wise investors.

The parables were very surprising forms of religious communication indeed. So surprising were they, in fact, that their meaning was often lost on many, especially those schooled in traditional religious speech. In Matthew 13, his disciples approached Jesus after he had told a story about sowing seed. They asked him, not the meaning of the story, but why he used these quaint stories at all. Jesus replied, “This is why I speak to them in parables: ‘Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing they do not hear or understand’” (Matt. 13:13). In other words, he used parables to veil his meaning, not to make it clearer! Jesus understood that his ministry was fulfilling the prophesy of Isaiah 6:9 that foretold of a time when Israel’s heart would be calloused and her ears clogged and her eyes closed to the truth of God’s grace.

Jesus’ teaching ministry was purposefully cryptic, allowing those who sought answers, rather than those who “had all the answers,” to access the surprising truth of grace. So then he went on to explain the parable of the seed and the sower. By outlining the different types of soil that the seed fell on (the path, the rocky places, the thorny soil, the good soil) he demonstrated something about the different ways people would access his stories. Some would openly dismiss them as silly children’s stories (particularly the Pharisees and scribes), others would be slightly interested for a while, and still others would be tantalized by these strange but wonderful tales.

They would be so intrigued that they would have to enquire further. And as Jesus had already told his disciples earlier, it was this kind of genuine enquiry he was seeking to evoke: “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you” (Matt. 7:7). In our attempts to make the gospel clear, we have often squeezed all the life out of it. Jesus’ parables were intriguing, open to interpretation, playful, interesting.

They provoked people to search further for the truth. Elie Wiesel tells about an editor who once told him, “If you want to hold the reader’s attention, your sentence must be clear enough to be understood and enigmatic enough to pique curiosity. A good piece combines style and substance. It must not say everything—never say everything—while nevertheless suggesting there is an everything.”  

Parables, stories, will be more likely to excite curiosity than propositionally presented outlines of the gospel. In Faith in a Changing Culture , John Drane outlines the importance of storytelling in this day and age. He proposes the importance of using three kinds of stories. First, God’s story. He claims that God is present and actively involved in our world and we should be prepared to tell such stories about him. By this, we take him to mean God’s prevenient grace. Tell your friends about a film you’ve seen where God’s truth was revealed in a particular scene or character. Tell your friends about sunsets, items in the newspaper, and so-called coincidences.

As Drane says, The Bible unhesitatingly affirms that God is constantly at work in the world in many ways, times and places. Evangelism is not about Christians working on God’s behalf because God is powerless without them. Effective evangelism must start with recognizing where God is already at work, and getting alongside God in what is going on there. God’s story, not ours, is the authentic starting point. Second, Drane recommends the use of Bible stories. This might sound like the ultimate conversation stopper, but we have found that at the right time and place, within the context of a strong friendship, the retelling of an ancient biblical story can evoke a great deal of curiosity. And third, he advocates the use of personal stories on the basis of 1 Peter 3:15, “Be prepared to give an answer . . . for the hope that you have.”

While propositions about Jesus are words on a page, stories are events in a life. Drane puts it well: Telling stories demands personal honesty, accepting our weaknesses as well as our strengths. It is only when we reveal ourselves as weak and vulnerable that others will readily identify with us and be able to hear the invitation to join us in following Jesus. Too often, Christian proclamation sounds like a patronizing sermon, in which we, the Christians, are the experts and all others are ignorant. As Karl Barth put it, “When we speak of our virtues we are competitors, when we confess our sins we become brothers.”  - Excerpt from The Shaping of Things to Come by Michael Frost and Alan Hirsch

Incarnational Mission - Alan Hirsch

Whisperers and Storytellers - Part 1

“The church has sought to guide the spiritual lives of its members in very practical, reasonable ways. That sounds like a compliment. It’s not. Contrary to Western thought, spirituality is anything but reasonable and practical.”

— Jeff Woods

Some years ago we came across the story of Monty Roberts, called the Man Who Listens to Horses (after his bestselling book). Though loosely the basis of the book and film, The Horse Whisperer (starring Robert Redford), Monty’s story doesn’t quite resemble the film’s melodrama and romance. His is the simple story of a man’s affinity with animals, in particular the wild mustangs of Montana’s mountains. Monty grew up on a ranch with his family of horse traders. For generations the Robertses had ridden out into the rugged mountains to round up the wild horses that they would then break and sell to other Montana ranchers. The magnificent untamed beasts that roamed the mountains were all sinew and muscle, all wild instinct and sheer physical power. Breaking them was no mean feat. 

Once Monty’s grandfather, father, uncles, or brothers had captured a mustang and confined it to a corral, they then had to break its magnificent spirit. This could mean weeks of work, as these most spirited of animals were often very difficult to tame. Monty says that some horses were so wild that one of their fetlocks had to be tied with rope around their necks. The wildest, most powerful animals could finally be broken only after much blood, sweat, and suffering. Even as a young boy, Monty Roberts suspected that there had to be a better way to befriend these mustangs than to break their spirits so cruelly. Then, during his adolescence, while riding up in the Montana high country, he noticed that whenever a beast was separated from the herd and left to wander alone in the mountains it often became sick, even to the point of near-death. This got him thinking.

If these were such herd animals with such a powerful, innate instinct for connection with other creatures, then maybe that instinct could be used for taming them. He began experimenting on a different way of “breaking” wild mustangs, until in his early adulthood he developed a whole new method. Now, he travels the world demonstrating this approach. During a 60 Minutes program, Monty Roberts taught the world his method of horse whispering. It involves his getting into the corral with the untamed mustang and staying as far from the animal as possible, without leaving the enclosure. He also refuses to allow any eye contact between him and the horse. By moving slowly, but surely, away from the horse and by keeping his head averted from the animal’s gaze, Monty slowly draws the horse to himself. Even though the beast is pounding the earth with his hoof and snorting and circling the corral with great speed, Monty keeps steadily moving away from the horse. He won’t look at it. He won’t approach it. 

As astounding as it sounds, within an hour, Monty can have a wild mustang saddled and carrying a rider quite happily. When asked his secret, he says, “These animals need contact with others so much, they would rather befriend their enemy than be left alone.” When he discovered this method of “whispering” into the horse’s deepest longing, he told his weather-beaten father and uncles and brothers that there was no longer any need to crush the mustang’s spirit. He demonstrated his new method, but to this day, in spite of the evidence that it works, Montana ranchmen still use the traditional approach. 

Monty’s story reminds us of the church. Even though he has discovered an effective way of listening to horses (his own term), the old Montana horsemen won’t budge. They’ve been breaking horses their way for generations. Why should they change now? 

The church might say, we’ve been “breaking” sinners like them for generations. Leave them to us. But the old method of crushing the spirits of seekers who don’t fit the conventional, stereotypical church testimony won’t be effective any longer. Many people are avoiding the church like the plague. It’s time for us to develop a spirituality of engagement with not-yet-Christians. That will involve true listening and genuine presence. 

The traditional method of reaching not-yet-Christians has been to bludgeon them into a recognition of how broken they are. To crush their spirit. To tear them down and bring them to their knees (we’re sure we’ve heard evangelists actually speak like this!). 

There’s very little genuine friendship happening. When churches do befriend unbelievers it’s often so that they might become Christians. And it’s assumed that the way to become Christian is for them to see how truly bad they are. Surely, not-yet-Christians see how disingenuous this is.

True friendship is God’s calling, in and of itself. If people find friendship with Jesus through our friendship with them, that is the work of the Holy Spirit. Instead of having such a combative, manipulative spirituality of engagement with others, we believe the church needs to recover a spirituality of engagement that whispers into the souls of not-yet-Christians. As Monty Roberts appeals to his wild mustangs’ deepest longings, we need to develop an ear for listening to such longings in our friends and engaging them with respect, grace, and compassion. How can we whisper into the deepest longings of not-yet-Christians? - Excerpt from The Shaping of Things to Come by Michael Frost and Alan Hirsch

(Part 2 to follow)

What Would Jesus Really Do?

“THEN JESUS SAID TO HIS DISCIPLES, “IF ANYONE WISHES TO COME AFTER ME, HE MUST DENY HIMSELF, AND TAKE UP HIS CROSS AND FOLLOW ME.”

What does it mean to be taken captive by the flesh-and-blood Jesus? By making Christ seem otherworldly, even ethereal, the church has inadvertently put him out of reach to us as an example or a guide. Even though Jesus routinely called people to follow him, the church has often represented this following in purely metaphysical or mystical terms. We can follow Jesus "in our heart" but not necessarily with our actions. Even after the phenomenally successful What Would Jesus Do campaign, in which Christians were encouraged to ask themselves this question before every action, it seemed that Christians were more interested in asking the question than in doing what Jesus would do. We have sanitized and tamed Jesus by encasing him in abstract theology, and in doing so we have removed our motivation for discipleship.

When Jesus is just true light of true light, and not flesh and blood, we are only ever called to adore him, not follow him. In Charles Sheldon’s popular novel In His Steps , one of the characters, Rev. Henry Maxwell, encounters a homeless man who challenges him to take seriously the imitation of Christ. The homeless man has difficulty understanding why, in his view, so many Christians ignore the poor: I heard some people singing at a church prayer meeting the other night,

All for Jesus, all for Jesus,
All my being’s ransomed powers,
All my thoughts, and all my doings,
All my days, and all my hours.

… And I kept wondering as I sat on the steps outside just what they meant by it. It seems to me there’s an awful lot of trouble in the world that somehow wouldn’t exist if all the people who sing such songs went and lived them out. I suppose I don’t understand. But what would Jesus do? Is that what you mean by following his steps? It seems to me sometimes as if the people in the big churches had good clothes and nice houses to live in, and money to spend for luxuries, and could go away on summer vacations and all that, while the people outside the churches, thousands of them, I mean, die in tenements, and walk the streets for jobs, and never have a piano or a picture in the house, and grow up in misery and drunkenness and sin. This leads to many of the novel’s characters asking, "What would Jesus do?" when faced with decisions of some importance. This has the effect of making the characters embrace more seriously the fact that Jesus lies at Christianity’s core consciousness.

The difficulty for the church today is not in encouraging people to ask what Jesus would do, but in getting them to break out of their domesticated and sanitized ideas about Jesus in order to answer that question. Jesus was a wild man. He was a threat to the security of the religious establishment. He was baptized by a wild man. He inaugurated his ministry by spending time with the wild beasts of the wilderness. He was unfazed by a wild storm that lashed his boat on an excursion across a lake and with the wildness of the demoniacs of the Gaderenes. And while he ultimately brought peace to both those situations, in neither instance did Jesus appear overwhelmed or frightened by the circumstances. There was an untamed power within him. Even his storytelling, so often characterized by the church today as warm morality tales, was dangerous and subversive and mysterious. If your answer to the question "What would Jesus do?" is that he would be conventional, safe, respectable and refined, then we suspect you didn’t find that answer in the Gospels. 

Excerpt from "Re-Jesus" by Alan Hirsch and Michael Frost

 

Our Dangerous Story by Michael Frost

“Nostalgia will move us nowhere but we go back to break bread and drink wine and tell this most dangerous story. That God, Yahweh inhabited flesh, became one of us in order to redeem us. The most radical and dangerous story is the story of the gospel!”

Redeeming Sex: Raw and Beautiful and Good for Everyone

Deb Hirsch's book Redeeming Sex: Naked Conversations about Sexuality and Spirituality has only been on the shelves a couple of months, and already, it is impacting the Christian conversation around sexuality and making waves. For many, they've been waves of relief--a collective exhale. For those of us who hate the way sex is generally discussed in church circles, she has given a new language and license for a more compassionate and honest conversation. 

Amazon reviewers have raved over the book, and Relevant Magazine named Redeeming Sex as one of 11 essential summer reads, explaining, "Hirsch draws upon her own experience in and around the LGBT community to write this gracious exploration on sex and the Church. Hirsch calls for churches to extend hospitality and embrace the LGBT community, but stops short of arguing that churches should affirm same-sex marriages. This book demonstrates an unwavering Christ-like love for all humanity and carves out a space for open conversation about sexuality. It flies in the face of the escalating culture wars of our day and invites us to imagine a Church of the future that is shaped by the Gospel virtues of love and unity."

While much of the book does directly engage the conversation around LGTB sexuality (so very important, whether are processing questions around sexual orientation or questions around the church's best respond to the LGTB community), there is also a good deal of conversation around heterosexual sexuality and the way the church has moved away from a healthy view of our sexuality. I found Redeeming Sex to be both freeing and encouraging. Since so much has been written around the book's approach to homosexuality, I thought I'd center mine around the broader conversation around healthy sexuality: 

De-stigmatizing Sexuality in the Church

This week I had a conversation with a couple who, though they've been married for years, still feel unsure around expressing sexuality within their marriage relationship. They grew up in very conservative Christian homes, where sexuality was considered dirty and shameful. And of course, after marriage vows are exchanged, sexuality is necessary for babies! Just like that, the switch is supposed to flip, but for them, they're not sure exactly HOW to flip the switch. And even though the strong message from the church is "Babies are good--get going," they're not sure who to turn to for an honest conversation and freedom to ask questions. Sex may be great after marriage, but it still feels taboo to discuss it.  

I have had this conversation with dozens of people over the years, and it makes me feel grateful (at least in this area) that I didn't grow up in the church! 

To quote Deb, "We have to simply admit that Christian spiritual traditions of the West have not formed us well in this area. It is as if we have been left stranded on the shores of the twenty-first century as underdeveloped, oversexed adolescents attempting to navigate adult bodies in a deeply sexualized context." 

In her introduction, she explains, "We need to move beyond the largely moralistic, disgraced, traditional dualistic suppression of the body (and the soul, for that matter) that has marked Christianity in the Western tradition. We need to (re) apply to our sexualities the radical grace and salvation that we all must find in Jesus." And then she carefully and intentionally does just that. She builds a case that our sexuality does in fact come from, and even express the image of, God. As I read her words around healthy sexuality, I repeatedly found myself saying, "Yes! This!" and "Of course--why haven't I seen that before?" 

A New Paradigm for Friendship across the Gender Line

Deb's book also gave me language around the difficulty that I sometimes experience as I live and lead and connect as a woman in the church. Because our sexuality is seen as primarily dangerous, I occasionally find it something of a tightrope walk to pursue spiritual friendships and express authentic identity in the context of church community. Because of the "it's complicated" status of male-female relationships within church community, women are often relegated to both leading and being known within specific women's ministries. Even outside of a separate-but-equal type of solution, though, I often find myself bumping into invisible, de facto barriers to collaboration and connection. 

Deb addresses this area with care. "Our sexuality is indeed a powerful force. It can lead us to something of an experience of either heaven or hell, depending on our ability to orient it toward God or not. This is why it not only needs to be understood and integrated into our spirituality, but also handled with great care--and why it's imperative for Christians to talk more openly about it."

It's tempting to "handle with care" by avoiding the danger, but she warns us away from the rules that are often imposed on men and women in churches: "In most cases, these types of rules are coming from a sincere place, and in certain settings may be appropriate. But let's not be naive as to what messages they are communicating. First and fundamentally, they effectively reduce the totality of human sexuality to brute sex. Second, they suggest that all men and women are always attracted to one another. Third, they assume that people can't help themselves, they simply have to indulge temptation at every possible opportunity." 

The obvious byproducts of this kind of thinking is underdeveloped self control and missed opportunities for collaboration within the kingdom, not to mention the damage inflicted on women who sometimes feel objectified and unseen by the most well-meaning of men. Deb further explains that these rules don't "help [people] to learn to navigate relationships meaningfully--an activity we actually have to do every day of our lives," and that "adults need to be able to make meaningful decisions for themselves, not jsut acquiesce to rules imposed from the outside." 

But what is the alternative? We need a third paradigm! Let me explain: 

Deb leans into the teaching of Brennan Manning as she processes why the church fails so miserably in promoting healthy social and professional relationship between men and women: "Brennan suggests that the two dominant narratives told in Christian communities have held captive our understanding of friendship. The first is the 'marital/romantic story,' and the second is the 'danger story.' ... Where are the redemptive stories in evangelical culture--stories of healthy nonromantic cross-sex friendships? Brennan proposes the brother-sister metaphor found in Scripture (Mark 3:35) as a third way for men and women to connect in nonsexual intimacy. This vision is a powerful alternative to the prevailing fearful approach to cross-sex relationships." 

She goes on to explain that by anchoring our policies around male-female connection in fear, we are thinking primarily about what we hope to avoid, and not about what we hope to encourage and develop. "A proper sexual ethic," she claims, "doesn't deny the fact that we are sexual beings; it develops a framework for the good expression of our good sexuality." Amen! 

These passages are just the tip of the iceberg. 

If you haven't yet picked up a copy of Deb's book, please know that these are just slivers of the ideas presented. There is so much more to enjoy! Much of the book gives language and license around a compassionate, clear conversation around LGTB sexuality, a conversation we all need to navigate better. But even if that is not a topic you're looking to dig into, there's fantastic content around healthy sexuality, healthy friendship, sexuality within celibacy, and more. If you are a sexual being (hint: you are), there is something in this book for you. 

Here are some links to get you started: 

Order Today! 
Like Deb's page on Facebook!