Unity and Diversity: Their Role in Biblical Theology
A Paper
Presented to
Dr. Sheets, Ph.D.
In partial fulfillment of the requirements of
Bthb529 Foundations of Biblical Theology
Benjamin E. Rainey, Jr.
June 30, 2006
INTRODUCTION
Biblical Theology, the discipline of theology that seeks to examine the overarching themes of Scripture, is challenged by an issue that has only been significant over the last two centuries. The debate has been coined “Unity and Diversity”. This debate fundamentally regards the reliability of the Bible. It is predicated on the notion that if the Bible is shown errant as a whole, or even portions shown to be fallacious then the theological system of man knowing God can be shattered.
The issue is contested hotly among believers and non-believers alike. These debates focus on what Scripture says in comparison and contrast to itself. The topic of unity and diversity rouses the interest of any sapient scholar attempting to know God’s revelation to man.
Unity and diversity are opposite ends of the same continuum. This essay seeks to understand if Scripture agrees and disagrees, and what impact that has on theology. The implications of this discussion are tantamount to the debate. It is a subject engaged by many. Bible scholars and atheists observe the intricacies of unity and diversity to bolster their polemics.
A preliminary piece of this discussion is a statement about the canon. The canon is the listing of books allowed in the Bible. This is important because attention should be given to the fact that scholars selected which books would be canonized. These men could have unified specific parts of theology by limiting the canon to only those books that agree decidedly in perspective and theme. It has been noted that it was to our benefit that this was not done. David Rhoads wrote, “Diversity is fundamental to the biblical witness. The later Christians who decided which writings to include in the Christian canon were well aware of the differences among the books they selected.”[1] They took into consideration the author’s affect and perspective which shapes the scripture as they were “carried along”[2].
In setting up this discussion further, the issues of unity and diversity should be understood respectively, in order to gain a standard in application of each side in this debate of Biblical Theology. Unity had been the majority position for theologians until the Enlightment. “Throughout most of the history of the church, the unity of Scripture has been assumed and its diversity taken less seriously.”[3] The unity position focuses on the agreement of scripture while downplaying its differences resorting to allegorizing or dismissing the differences, no matter how irrationally.
The problem facing the unity position is diversity. Paul Hanson asserts, “The diversity of biblical tradition, like the subjective dimension in every biblical confession, can be regarded either as a stumbling block in the way of the Bible’s contributing to contemporary understanding or as a great opportunity and challenge.”[4]
Stumbling block or not, it definitely has positioned itself in opposition. “The last 200 years of biblical interpretation have been dominated by claims that there are irreconcilable conflicts among the authors of Scripture, and by theories of the tradition history of both Testaments that conflict with the data presupposed by the canonical form of the Scriptures themselves.”[5] Are the differences irreconcilable? The answer lies in a look at the Scripture. A decision can be made by seeing examples of its unity and diversity.
MAJOR UNIFYING THEMES OF SCRIPTURE
Unifying themes are the focus of Biblical Theology. Some themes run continuously through scripture, others only sporadically. Many theologians weigh in on the subject of the central theme of scripture. I believe that many would agree with the assessment that the major themes include Kingdom and Covenant.
Kingdom is one of the strongest themes. Beginning in the Genesis, God begins to construct His Kingdom on Earth. The fall of man brings separation and division between man and God. God therefore begins His work of redeeming the relationship with man He desired. This theme is carried through the institution of God’s chosen people, Israel, into and out of captivity in Egypt, to their land where they set up a capital and kingdom. The book of Judges, for instance, shows that God’s people were not intended to exist independently; without a King the people did what was right in their own eyes.[6]. The intent was for this Kingdom to have a leader, and it was always God’s intent to be their King. The figures of Father, Deliverer, and King were shown through the patriarchs like, Abraham, Moses, and David. But each of these were foreshadows of Christ coming to usher in God’s Kingdom. The Prophets of the exile of Israel continued this theme of the Kingdom’s restoration, and in the birth of Jesus Christ the eternal King comes. His leaving is for the good of the church, as the Holy Spirit makes each believer a proclaimer of the Kingdom come near.[7] Finally, one day Christ will return and will usher in a new heaven and new earth and will establish His Kingdom forever.
The theme of Covenants also brings us a completely unified theme. God began covenanting with mankind through Adam and Eve. The shedding of blood was a symbol used elsewhere in biblical covenants. The slaughter of animals at the time of the curse, in addition to providing clothing, was also part of the covenant that God was making to redeem mankind.[8] He continued with the covenant of Noah.[9] God saved Noah and his family, covenanted against destroying the Earth by flood, and to continue to bring redemption to mankind. The covenant was made with Abraham to become the father of a great nation, and that through his seed the nations would be blessed.[10] God instituted a covenant with Moses at Sinai, and He prescribed the law by which they would have to live to be redeemed.[11] Finally, God sent Christ to be the fulfillment of the law, and established a new covenant in Christ’s blood of redemption which Christ said would be completed in the Kingdom.[12]
PERCIEVED CONTRASTING THEMES
Diversity in contrast has been cited by exponents as causing problems for an overly simplified view of unity. There are contrasting themes, primarily because not all writers were writing about the same themes. The thematic differences cause much of the problem with diversity. Authors who were writing to specific audiences and occasions were not trying to carry on the theme of other authors. J. G. McConville finds an explanation among the diversity of themes in the idea that in some cases Scripture is descriptive and at other times prescriptive.[13] To compare the description of some passages in scripture with the prescription of others is wide of the mark. The perspective and intent of the author plays a major role; to only look at the text in a literal form is to miss the impact of the author’s work.
The gospels hold a major source of diversity, and are the most critical area to deal with, as they contain the fulfillment of so many themes in Biblical Theology. The Christ story is contained in the gospels. The diversity issues led I. Howard Marshall to describe it this way:
“The Gospels can be compared to a picture by an old Master which has progressively disappeared under a series of layers of varnish, touching-up paint and dust, and the task to the Scholar is to remove the layers one by one with infinite care in order to remove the hidden Masterpiece. This simile is very much a simplification of a complex problem.”[14]
The diversity among the gospels stems from controversy regarding conflicting words of Christ, locations and chronology of events.
A broader example of diversity comes from the theme of God. John Goldingay wrote, “Since the OT’s [Old Testament] concern is Israel as the people of God, a further unifying strand in its thinking is God Himself.”[15] This however, leads to a diversity issue. Some have contended that the God of the Old Testament is angry and vindictive. This is a stark contrast to the God of love presented in Christ and the apostolic writings.
The issue is a perception of conflicting theology, however when closely investigated, God’s character is unified. Clinton McCann cites an early text from Exodus 34:6-7 which describes God’s mercy and enduring love. “This text alone should sufficiently dispel the widely held belief that the God of the Old Testament is a vengeful, wrathful God.”[16]
THE ROLE OF PROGRESSIVE REVELATION
An integral part of biblical interpretation, especially in light of the unity and diversity debate, is the role of progressive revelation. Bloomberg writes, “God’s progressive revelation allows for development of scripture in numerous ways.”[17] Progressive revelation shows an expanding understanding of God’s plan revealed in a broader way throughout the story of the Bible. I do not mean to insinuate that it is tidy and linearly expressed, but rather as the course of time plays out there is greater and greater understanding with regards to the Scriptures. There is never a time when we have the full story. Everything continues to be revealed right through Christ and beyond to the eschatological prophecies, which have yet to be revealed.
Israel did not have the whole story. “The Bible gives us fundamentals of faith. It cannot be read as a flat surface of uniform teaching, nor as an evenly developing progressive revelation. There are peaks and valleys in Scripture, in both Testaments.”[18] The apostles did not have the whole story, and we do not have the full story today, but God is revealing it. D.A. Carson said, “Study each corpus of the Scripture in its own right, especially with respect to its place in the history of God’s unfolding revelation.”[19] To focus only on individual areas of diversity with a great understanding of their theme, and in light of God’s progressive revelation is folly. The Old Testament is an incomplete book fulfilled in Christ’s Coming. The New Testament is also incomplete, fulfilled in Christ’s coming again.
It is through progressive revelation that we sort through the diversity to the unified story God is revealing. Gabriel Fackre wrote, “The conservative portion of unitive infallibility assumes that oneness of the message of salvation found through scripture. The ‘progressive revelation’ in the Bible does not call into question the harmony of all biblical teaching.”[20]
CONCLUSION
The unified themes of Scripture, the diversity of portions of it, and the application of progressive revelation can bring into perspective the Bible in its full light. We need not be fearful of the Diversity contingent; we need to see all of scripture for what it is. “The key to a proper appreciation of the diversity in Biblical Theology, therefore, is to interpret each book as a literary integrity in its own right, in the light of the unique circumstances and purpose that generated it, and of antecedent Scripture and other relevant historical background.”[21]
For all the discussion and research, I find that biblical authority is strengthened when among so many authors, from differing walks of life, backgrounds, and eras all writing diversely with specific messages to specific audiences, God reveals united themes throughout them. Unity and diversity are not polar opposites. Rather, they belong together in a complimentary relationship with one another.
Works Cited
Bloomberg Craig, L. “The Unity and Diversity of Scripture.” Rosner, Brian S., T. Desmond Alexander, et.al. eds. New Dictionary of Biblical Theology: Exploring the Unity & Diversity of Scripture. Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2000.
Carson, D.A and John D. Woodbridge, eds. Scripture and Truth. Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 1983.
Dunn, James D.G. Unity and Diversity in the New Testament. Philadelphia, PA: the
Westminster Press, 1977.
Fackre, Gabriel J. 1989. “Evangelical Hermeneutics: Commonality and Diversity”.
Interpretation 43 (April): 117-129.
Goldingay, John. Theological Diversity And The Authority Of The Old Testament.
Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1987.
Hanson, Paul D. The Diversity Of Scripture: A Theological Interpretation. Philadelphia,
PA: Fortress Press, 1982.
Marshall, I. Howard. I Believe In The Historical Jesus. Iowa Falls, Iowa: World Bible
Publishers Inc., 2002.
McCann, J Clinton, Jr. 2003. “The hermeneutics of grace: discerning the Bible’s single
plot”. Interpretation 57 (January): 5-15.
Packer, James I. 1982. “Upholding the unity of Scripture today”. Journal of the
Evangelical Theological Society 25 (December): 409-414.
Rhoads, David. The Challenge of Diversity. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 1996.
Sabourin, Leopold. The Bible and Christ: the unity of the two testaments. Staten Island,
NY: Alba House, 1980.
The Holy Bible, New International Version. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996
[1] David Rhoads. The Challenge of Diversity, (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Augsburg Fortress, 1996), 3.
[2] 2 Peter 1:19-21
[3] Craig Bloomberg, “The Unity and Diversity of Scripture.” New Dictionary of Biblical Theology: Exploring the Unity & Diversity of Scripture. Rosner, Brian S., T. Desmond Alexander, et.al. eds. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2000), 64.
[4] Paul Hanson, The Diversity of Scripture: A Theological Interpretation. (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Fortress Press, 1982), 10.
[5] Bloomberg, 65.
[6] Judges 21:25
[7] Acts 1:6-8
[8] Genesis 3:16-21
[9] Genesis 8:20-22
[10] Genesis 15,18:18
[11] Exodus 19-20
[12] Matthew 26:27-29
[13] Bloomberg, 70
[14] I. Howard Marshall, I Believe In The Historical Jesus. (Iowa Falls, Iowa: World Bible Publishers Inc., 2002), 144.
[15] John Goldingay, Diversity And The Authority Of The Old Testament. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1987), 32.
[16] J. Clinton McCann, Jr., “The hermeneutics of grace: discerning the Bible’s single plot”. Interpretation (January, 2003): 8.
[17] Bloomberg, 71.
[18] Gabriel Fackre, “Evangelical hermeneutics: commonality and diversity”. Interpretation. (April, 1989): 125.
[19] D. A. Carson, and John Woodbridge, eds. Scripture and Truth. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1983), 69.
[20] Fackre, 125
[21] Bloomberg, 70
Friday, June 30, 2006
Thursday, June 29, 2006
Cellphone vs. The Bible
Someone sent me a forwarded e-mail, though you know how I despise them. While writing a (soon to be posted) paper, I was in need of a reprieve so I opened this. It was a short thought and (as I want a little longer reprieve) I thought I'd post it for your thought-provocation.
I wonder what would happen if we treated our Bible like we treat our Cell Phone?
What if we carried it around in our purses or pockets?
What if we turned back to go get it if we forgot it?
What if we flipped through it several times a day?
What if we used it to receive "text" messages?
What if we treated it like we couldn't live without it?
What if we gave it to kids as gifts?
What if we used it as we traveled?
What if we used it in case of an emergency?
If I ever look like -->
Please get me a
Dramatic Makeover
If I ever send you a forward...shoot me.
-- Ben
I wonder what would happen if we treated our Bible like we treat our Cell Phone?
What if we carried it around in our purses or pockets?
What if we turned back to go get it if we forgot it?
What if we flipped through it several times a day?
What if we used it to receive "text" messages?
What if we treated it like we couldn't live without it?
What if we gave it to kids as gifts?
What if we used it as we traveled?
What if we used it in case of an emergency?
If I ever look like -->
Please get me a
Dramatic Makeover
If I ever send you a forward...shoot me.
-- Ben
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Maybe if you let us watch...
Ok,
Drudge listed a story today about how only 6% of American's were watching the World Cup. However, I think the poll is tainted by the fact that they don't show the Cup on American TV. No one can follow it. Now I know that I'm something of antiquity, but I don't have cable TV. Actually I chose not to afford it, but...
ABC is showing only a few games as they come on on Saturday's . Come on, in the midst of the horrible summer line-up for TV shows, I think that ABC could do better to show re-runs of the World Cup games. I'd watch.
I'm not a huge soccer fan. I wouldn't watch it as a regular season like Football or Baseball, but this is like the Olympics of Soccer. Give it air time. Let me air my opinion.
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
Prayer Walk
On Saturday morning we met up at Kinder Park to do our first Prayer walk. It was a great time. For 2 hours we enjoyed fellowship and prayer, and I believe that everyone there felt really good about it when we were done.
Christine Duerling, our prayer coordinator, had put the plans together, and she did a great job. We're thankful to have avoided the rain that came in later that night. From Kinder Park we broke into 4 groups that went to Gathering Places and Neighborhoods. A Gathering Place is a location in the community where people are likely to come together. (Shopping centers, libraries, schools, parks, etc. ) I think there are principles from the ministry of Paul that can direct us. For instance, Paul went to cities and found himself in the commercial districts and intellectual schools. Not just door to door.
Places we covered were Kinder Park, AACC, Park Plaza, the US Naval Academy, and several neighborhoods as well. Each group was a little different. Some walked silently and prayed, others walked together, talking about the church and stopped in specific locations to pray. I think the primary issue was that we prayed. It made me wonder why I had never been part of a prayer walk before. I've never viewed an area so much as a mission field. This is only the first of many prayer walks we'll be doing in our target area.
Thanks to Christine and all who participated.
--Ben
Christine Duerling, our prayer coordinator, had put the plans together, and she did a great job. We're thankful to have avoided the rain that came in later that night. From Kinder Park we broke into 4 groups that went to Gathering Places and Neighborhoods. A Gathering Place is a location in the community where people are likely to come together. (Shopping centers, libraries, schools, parks, etc. ) I think there are principles from the ministry of Paul that can direct us. For instance, Paul went to cities and found himself in the commercial districts and intellectual schools. Not just door to door.
Places we covered were Kinder Park, AACC, Park Plaza, the US Naval Academy, and several neighborhoods as well. Each group was a little different. Some walked silently and prayed, others walked together, talking about the church and stopped in specific locations to pray. I think the primary issue was that we prayed. It made me wonder why I had never been part of a prayer walk before. I've never viewed an area so much as a mission field. This is only the first of many prayer walks we'll be doing in our target area.
Thanks to Christine and all who participated.
--Ben
Friday, June 23, 2006
Space we're Pursuing
This week a group (Janet, Christine, Corie, Jenn, Holly, and Sydney) went with me to meet with Gayla Philips (facility manager) at Anne Arundel Community College. Of the spaces she showed us, this was the consensus. Some of my faithful readers will remember this as the CADE building. This is the front of the room. We need someone creative to design a stage area, something that sets it apart as a focal point.
This is the exterior wall continuing our tour clockwise. We really like these floor to ceiling windows. We think it gives the space a warm feel. The windows are set against the patio (see below).
This is the rear wall. The glass is the sound room area. Though the PA system and video projector are available, at a weekly charge, I think we'll be better off with our own stuff. This room can be set up to seat up to 150.
This is the interior wall. The doorway in the rear (see woman in black) is the door we'll use for entrance and exit. 
This is our patio. Just outside our door. This will be a great place for being together.
Outside our back door, is this amphitheatre. (gorgeous. nice pic Jenn) This would be a great place for outdoor services, maybe we could join with the other churches that meet on the campus.
This is the exterior wall continuing our tour clockwise. We really like these floor to ceiling windows. We think it gives the space a warm feel. The windows are set against the patio (see below).
This is the rear wall. The glass is the sound room area. Though the PA system and video projector are available, at a weekly charge, I think we'll be better off with our own stuff. This room can be set up to seat up to 150.
This is the interior wall. The doorway in the rear (see woman in black) is the door we'll use for entrance and exit. This is our patio. Just outside our door. This will be a great place for being together.Outside our back door, is this amphitheatre. (gorgeous. nice pic Jenn) This would be a great place for outdoor services, maybe we could join with the other churches that meet on the campus.Well, that's the tour. What do you think?
--Ben
Thursday, June 22, 2006
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
Helping those in need
I've learned of a family in the Baltimore area who had their house burn down last night. They have no clothing left. IF you could help please bring clothing to Pasadena A/G church.
Womens:
Shirts - XXL
Pants - 20-22
Men's:
Pants: 34-36 waist/28-30 length
Shirts: Large
Daughter:
Adult 6-7
Granddaughter:
ladies Shirt: Large
Slacks 16
410.647.2025 Talk to Carol
Womens:
Shirts - XXL
Pants - 20-22
Men's:
Pants: 34-36 waist/28-30 length
Shirts: Large
Daughter:
Adult 6-7
Granddaughter:
ladies Shirt: Large
Slacks 16
410.647.2025 Talk to Carol
Monday, June 19, 2006
Wiffle Ball and other mysteries
One of the reasons I love to Blog, is because I look for certain themes that are frequent in my life, and writing gives me the chance to consolidate these thoughts. They’re not always original, but occasionally they are. The theme that’s been coming out lately in conversations with PAG board members, Quake Youth Ministry staffers, and of course, SRC is the idea of Mission, Vision, and Core Values.
These statements are integral to successful organizations, and have been promoted to the point of cliché, but for me they have taken on tremendous significance, and I believe that beyond the 7 Habit’s push of the 90’s, there is measurable importance to determining these matters.
I’ve taken to comparing this whole thing to a ball game. I hope that it makes understanding easier. I admit that for years I read books that showed me the corporate model, and I really wanted to understand, but not until recently have I really understood the value of each.
One more disclaimer before I dive in. Differing authors place the role of Vision and Mission interchangeably. My understanding is firmly built on Matthew 28:18-20. This scripture is what the church has historically called “The Great Commission”. My basis for Mission is founded here since mission can be found in Commission (as ridiculous as that sounds).
Here we go: Mission is the name of the game. Mission tells us what game we’ve come to play. For example our mission statement might be, “We exist to play wiffle ball.” When I ring you on the phone and ask you to come play wiffle ball, you show up with just about no equipment, because you know we’re playing wiffle ball. But if everyone runs around chasing a black and white ball and kicking it with their feet, you’d say, “No one told me we were playing soccer.” And you’d become confused and/or disgruntled because the game you were told we were going to play was wrong.
Mission defines the game. For SRC it’s “We exist to become a significant church in the greater Annapolis area: making disciples, baptizing them and teaching them to obey God’s word.” That is the game we play. No soccer, not social club, not secret society. We have defined the game we play.
Vision is what it looks like to win. We know we’re winning when…Let’s go back to our fictional wiffle ball match. A vision statement would say, “The Blue Bombers (that’s my team) will strive to cross home plate more times and more often than the Yellow Jackets (that’s your team). This vision statement says, we don’t care about how many times we get to first or third. It doesn’t say we just want to lay around on the grass and dream of chili dogs. Instead it defines the win. And when understood by everyone on the team, then we know what we’re aiming for.
In the case of SRC it is that we want to be a multiplying church in the Annapolis area and change the spiritual destiny of Maryland. That’s how we’ll know we’re winning. If we don’t help other churches start, if we don’t see the spiritual climate of Maryland change, then we’re not winning.
Core Values are the rules by which we play the game. Imagine how frustrating it would be for you Yellow Jacket blokes if the Blue Bombers decided that, in order to accomplish the Vision, we were just gonna run to third base when we hit, so we’d be in better position to cross home plate more times and more often than you. How would you feel? You’d get mad, and rightly so, because the rules of the game stipulate that you have to run to first, (…erm) first. In fact this is where the emotion is played out. You would start yelling and screaming about how we had broken the rules. The fact as I’ve learned it lately is that Core Values have to be emotional. If they aren’t emotional…they aren’t Core Values. They may be nice ideas or clever slogans, but unless you get emotional about them as being non-negotiable they’re not really Core Values.
One more thing I guess about Core Values. Focusing on any one rule negates the game. A Core Value (rule) in wiffle ball is that a player must run to consecutive bases as they’re laid out on the diamond. But if a player only focused on that rule, we would stand puzzled when Johnny took off running around the bases, but never swung the bat. You see the Core Values aren’t intended to stand on their own, instead they work together to form the matrix through which all game (mission) related decisions and plays are made.
In the case of SRC, to focus on any one of our Core Values and say I don’t want to play that game, would be wrong. The game isn’t the rule, but the mission. You determine whether you’re playing the right game first. Then look at the rules. Some people play wiffle ball with different rules. That doesn’t make the game wrong, so long as everyone agrees to the rules. SRC’s values aren’t better or worse than the Yellow Jacket’s, it’s just the rules we play by. And so long as we’re agreed to the rules, we never have to wonder which way the game is going to be played.
I hope that this primer has been a help to someone. I hope that it hasn’t complicated the issue for any. Please comment; ask questions, I’d like to refine this more if I can.
Thanks,
--Ben
These statements are integral to successful organizations, and have been promoted to the point of cliché, but for me they have taken on tremendous significance, and I believe that beyond the 7 Habit’s push of the 90’s, there is measurable importance to determining these matters.
I’ve taken to comparing this whole thing to a ball game. I hope that it makes understanding easier. I admit that for years I read books that showed me the corporate model, and I really wanted to understand, but not until recently have I really understood the value of each.
One more disclaimer before I dive in. Differing authors place the role of Vision and Mission interchangeably. My understanding is firmly built on Matthew 28:18-20. This scripture is what the church has historically called “The Great Commission”. My basis for Mission is founded here since mission can be found in Commission (as ridiculous as that sounds).
Here we go: Mission is the name of the game. Mission tells us what game we’ve come to play. For example our mission statement might be, “We exist to play wiffle ball.” When I ring you on the phone and ask you to come play wiffle ball, you show up with just about no equipment, because you know we’re playing wiffle ball. But if everyone runs around chasing a black and white ball and kicking it with their feet, you’d say, “No one told me we were playing soccer.” And you’d become confused and/or disgruntled because the game you were told we were going to play was wrong.
Mission defines the game. For SRC it’s “We exist to become a significant church in the greater Annapolis area: making disciples, baptizing them and teaching them to obey God’s word.” That is the game we play. No soccer, not social club, not secret society. We have defined the game we play.
Vision is what it looks like to win. We know we’re winning when…Let’s go back to our fictional wiffle ball match. A vision statement would say, “The Blue Bombers (that’s my team) will strive to cross home plate more times and more often than the Yellow Jackets (that’s your team). This vision statement says, we don’t care about how many times we get to first or third. It doesn’t say we just want to lay around on the grass and dream of chili dogs. Instead it defines the win. And when understood by everyone on the team, then we know what we’re aiming for.
In the case of SRC it is that we want to be a multiplying church in the Annapolis area and change the spiritual destiny of Maryland. That’s how we’ll know we’re winning. If we don’t help other churches start, if we don’t see the spiritual climate of Maryland change, then we’re not winning.
Core Values are the rules by which we play the game. Imagine how frustrating it would be for you Yellow Jacket blokes if the Blue Bombers decided that, in order to accomplish the Vision, we were just gonna run to third base when we hit, so we’d be in better position to cross home plate more times and more often than you. How would you feel? You’d get mad, and rightly so, because the rules of the game stipulate that you have to run to first, (…erm) first. In fact this is where the emotion is played out. You would start yelling and screaming about how we had broken the rules. The fact as I’ve learned it lately is that Core Values have to be emotional. If they aren’t emotional…they aren’t Core Values. They may be nice ideas or clever slogans, but unless you get emotional about them as being non-negotiable they’re not really Core Values.
One more thing I guess about Core Values. Focusing on any one rule negates the game. A Core Value (rule) in wiffle ball is that a player must run to consecutive bases as they’re laid out on the diamond. But if a player only focused on that rule, we would stand puzzled when Johnny took off running around the bases, but never swung the bat. You see the Core Values aren’t intended to stand on their own, instead they work together to form the matrix through which all game (mission) related decisions and plays are made.
In the case of SRC, to focus on any one of our Core Values and say I don’t want to play that game, would be wrong. The game isn’t the rule, but the mission. You determine whether you’re playing the right game first. Then look at the rules. Some people play wiffle ball with different rules. That doesn’t make the game wrong, so long as everyone agrees to the rules. SRC’s values aren’t better or worse than the Yellow Jacket’s, it’s just the rules we play by. And so long as we’re agreed to the rules, we never have to wonder which way the game is going to be played.
I hope that this primer has been a help to someone. I hope that it hasn’t complicated the issue for any. Please comment; ask questions, I’d like to refine this more if I can.
Thanks,
--Ben
Friday, June 16, 2006
Be Aware of Trends...Beware of Trendiness
There are some people who can pull off trendiness. I'm not one of them. Style is not my strength. When I try to speak trendy, I sound like a nincompoop. When I try to dress trendy I look fat. It just doesn't work for me.
There are some people who are able to be trendy, they pull it off really well. I was a reference for a girl I know who is being hired at the Limited 2 (too?) . I noticed the other day that she was dressing stylishly. I was kinda proud of myself, because I connected the way she dressed with some girls her age in a Payless commercial. And I sat smugly, thinking, yeah you've got a knack for style. Of course I wouldn't look nearly as good in a skirt like that, but if that was a trend I could pull off, believe me , girl, I would be all over it.
So why a discussion of my trendy disfunction? I think that I'm a nerd, but I think about trends not in light of me the person, but of trendiness among churches (organizations). It is trendy right now to worship in kinda ancient/mystical ways. Interesting. It's trendy to light candles, and mediatate. (That's pretty cool I guess. There's a church in our area with a swimming pool, and on Tuesday nights it's ladies night, and they turn the lights out and light a bunch of candles and the women float...Ok, that's wierd.) ANYWAY, to pursue trendiness is quite a bit different from being aware of trends. Trends are measurable, and are telltale signs of where people are. Trendiness is a game that requires a lot of effort to stay ahead of. Effort that only results in trying to get ahead of the next trend.
Please help me. I'm a slave to stlylessness.
--Ben
There are some people who are able to be trendy, they pull it off really well. I was a reference for a girl I know who is being hired at the Limited 2 (too?) . I noticed the other day that she was dressing stylishly. I was kinda proud of myself, because I connected the way she dressed with some girls her age in a Payless commercial. And I sat smugly, thinking, yeah you've got a knack for style. Of course I wouldn't look nearly as good in a skirt like that, but if that was a trend I could pull off, believe me , girl, I would be all over it.
So why a discussion of my trendy disfunction? I think that I'm a nerd, but I think about trends not in light of me the person, but of trendiness among churches (organizations). It is trendy right now to worship in kinda ancient/mystical ways. Interesting. It's trendy to light candles, and mediatate. (That's pretty cool I guess. There's a church in our area with a swimming pool, and on Tuesday nights it's ladies night, and they turn the lights out and light a bunch of candles and the women float...Ok, that's wierd.) ANYWAY, to pursue trendiness is quite a bit different from being aware of trends. Trends are measurable, and are telltale signs of where people are. Trendiness is a game that requires a lot of effort to stay ahead of. Effort that only results in trying to get ahead of the next trend.
Please help me. I'm a slave to stlylessness.
--Ben
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
Great Small Group
Two weeks ago we started small group meetings on Monday nights. This week was GREAT! We're covering a core value each week. This is not for the faint of heart. Core values have to be emotional. If they're not, then they're not really core values. Core values form the matrix through which all decisions and actions are determined. They are the non-negotiables that say, "If we don't do play by these rules, we're playing the game wrong." This week was the value: Cultivating Community Connection. Some emotional discussion/debate insued. I loved it. Not for the sake of conflict, but because I'd rather deal with conflict now as we establish our DNA, then deal with it for the next 20 years because we never nailed it down.
I want to encourage everyone to keep it up. See you next week.
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Big Ben Roethlisberger was involved in a motorcycle accident yesterday, breaking bones in his face, losing his teeth, and suffering lacerations. He was riding a Suzuki Hyabusa, Suzuki's big badboy of a sportbike, without a helmet. Ouch!!!
Why would you go even 35 without a helmet in downtown traffic?
Are you wearing your protective gear?
Eph6:11Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. 12For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. 13Therefore take the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. 14Stand therefore, having girded your loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, 15and having shod your feet with the equipment of the gospel of peace; 16besides all these, taking the shield of faith, with which you can quench all the flaming darts of the evil one. 17And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. 18Pray at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication.
Monday, June 12, 2006
A Big One -- Read at own risk.
BIOGRAPHICAL ACTION PLAN FOR SEVERN RIVER CHURCH
A Paper
Presented to
Dr. Randy Walls, D. Min.
In partial fulfillment of the requirements of
PTHB 620 Church in Emerging Culture
Benjamin E. Rainey, Jr.
June 12, 2006
INTRODUCTION
On January 29, 2006 a public announcement was made at Pasadena Assembly of God church (PAG) in Pasadena, Maryland. The announcement was made that a new church would be planted six miles south in the town of Arnold, Maryland. It was an announcement of great excitement, and I was announced to be the church planter. On February 21, 2006 everything I thought I knew about church would be seriously challenged as I was introduced to the Emerging Church movement, and contemplated what impact it would have on this developing church.
Suddenly I was confronted with questions of theory and practice with which I had never before dealt. I was deluged with the weight of responsibility I carried in this plant and the significance of the repercussions of the foundational decisions. Decisions that affect the DNA of the church as an organization, and therefore affect all progeny be it converts, disciples, or future church plants.
I found myself wrestling with the postmodern world and what affect it had on my planting scenario. Tom Jones stated, “Where modernism has emphasized ‘newness’ and innovation, postmodernism asks us as Christian people to reevaluate, reconsider, renew, regenerate, and rehearse what it means to be the church.”[1]
What does it mean to be the church? Is it possible that for generations we have bought into a compromised system? I began to believe we had. It grew out of my own experience prior to the class I attended. It began in my home two years previous when I began a small group that had dynamics that I had never experienced in any of the church programs in which I had been involved in. There was growth in my life and evident growth in others as we met together intimately, openly.
The introduction to the Emerging Church was only the confluence of my experiences with others who had similar experiences. How would this change the foundational principles of Severn River Church (SRC)? This essay is prepared in order to share the story of SRC, and show as a case study how this church is being formed to fulfill its mission now and in the future.
Bill Easum addressing the modern mindset of church growth wrote, “With such a Life Metaphor [church as machine] all one has to do to make a better church is focus on creating a better functioning machine – a little oil here or a new part there does the trick.”[2] I believe that this cold application of ecclesiastical theory has led to an isolated church, impotent in its affairs.
Leading others to discipleship in community, and in fulfilling the mission of the church has become my primary challenge. In some ways it involves reeducating Christians how to be the church, but more importantly it is becoming a movement to show the world what it is to be a church.
There certainly have been struggles within the church regarding postmodernity and a movement called the Emerging Church. A critic writes, “The fundamental problem with the emerging church is that it rejects the authority of the word of God. Emergents prefer mystery to clarity; they prefer questions to direct answers. They prefer the journey to the destination. They question and undermine and insert doubt in the minds of young people who are already swimming in a sea of postmodern confusion.”[3]
It is not my intention to join the Emergent Network[4], a friendship involved in the conversation about the future of the church in the postmodern world. Instead, I just want a missional church, united and facing the world together; much the same way that the early church did.
THE CALLING
My calling began in 2001. I had become a youth pastor and was invited to attend a leadership summit. This summit concluded with an announcement by the event planner, Mark Morrow, that he would be leaving his church in order to plant a church in Williamsburg, Virginia.
I remember thinking that the idea of starting a church was a great fit for Mark, who I greatly admired, and began praying for him and his plant. I would call it an interest at that point, but in 2003 church planting grew into a burden. It was around that time that the Assemblies of God began an initiative called, “Every Church a Parent or a Partner”. I began to learn more and more about church planting and its effectiveness in spreading the gospel among the unchurched.
In 2004 the burden had become a fixture on my heart. I conducted an extended fast, praying for God to clarify whether church planting would remain a burden or if indeed God was calling me to church planting. It was during that fast that God confirmed his calling in me.
I immediately met with my senior pastor and shared my calling with him. He affirmed the call and we began pursuing a plant with the Potomac District’s approval and oversight. Our church board supported it and worked to organize a plan for the transition. It was a great step of faith for a church of 180 people.
THE VISION
The vision came together as I began praying. The Lord began to show me where to go and what to do. We picked a location half-way between Pasadena and Annapolis, called the Broadneck Peninsula. It is where I grew up, and is a fascinating area rich with history and growing in its significance to affect the future of Maryland.
Our vision is that SRC will be a strategic location from which to launch a movement of churches. We will target Annapolis and its outlying communities; we will change this area and affect the spiritual destiny of Maryland.[5]
I believe that this area is in need of a Pentecostal church, missionally focused, authentic in its community to accomplish that vision. Robert Webber said, “We encounter Jesus through the church as it embodies truth. Conversion is not merely embracing an intellectual idea; it is taking one’s place within the body of people who confess Christ and seek to live out the kingdom of Jesus. Thus one does not merely know intellectually but one knows holistically in community.”[6] The mission is, of course, an echo of the great commission of Christ. I think that every church’s mission statement should be roughly the same. Our mission statement states it this way, “The mission of SRC is to become a significant church in the greater Annapolis area; making disciples, baptizing them, and teaching them to obey God’s word.”[7]
This is the mission of the body of Christ. Visions change. The mission will not, until the return of Christ. SRC is built on three guiding principles, that we see intrinsic in that mission: Community, Transformation, and Leadership Development.
THE TARGET
Our area is a steady one. It is not a growth area, like other Maryland counties. Home to 107,000 residents, the peninsula serves as a bedroom community for Baltimore, Annapolis, and Washington D.C. This community is trending older according to a 2005 census review.[8] Currently the majority of the population is between 20 and 45, however the 35 to 45 contingent, the largest segment, are about to move into the older bracket by 2010 thus showing an aging trend. The average age in our target community is 40.2. They are evenly distributed between men and women. This area is very mobile with the average family owning 2 cars, and having children attending elementary or middle school.
Affluence above national standards is derived from the majority white collar workforce and education levels. Anne Arundel County is the third highest educated county in Maryland with one out of five residents holding a graduate degree. These things contribute to the high transience rate, with families moving into and out of the area every five years, on average. Racially this area is predominantly white at almost 90%.
We will be targeting the residents of our target area. To zero in on any one section of our demographic is arrogant and irresponsible. I believe that we will naturally build affinities for our community, but to exclude any segment of our population, including those often overlooked by other churches is not missional.
The target is people whether it is the fifty-something owner of the local coffee shop, the blue haired kid working his counter, the forty-something African-American facilities manager at the college SRC rents from, or the homeless man on the street corner. My heart for ministry beats for all of them. God has called us to all of these. We need to watch for what God is doing and jump on board with that. He has us meeting on a community college campus; we’d better be reaching out to those students. God has even given us a member of our launch team who is a student there. We’ll pursue it for the sake of the mission.
THE CHURCH
The journey for us as a church so far has been a good one. It began with two informational meetings at PAG in the month of February. These meetings were held for the whole congregation, and we offered an invitation for anyone that wanted to come to SRC to attend a pre-commitment meeting at my house. A group of about twenty participated.
This is a unique group, and clearly put together by God. We have three couples over forty and six couples under thirty, one single, two children, and two teens. One couple is relocating from Pennsylvania to serve as our youth pastors. One couple was educated at Lee University and is currently stationed at the United States Naval Academy with a call to chaplaincy. One couple came out of a pastor’s home and knows what “ministry in the trenches” is really like. Many of the others are recent converts and add a lot of freshness and excitement with a vision for growing ministry roles.
Coming out of the pre-commitment meetings, I conducted personal interviews with each of the above, and we set ourselves to meet for two fellowship meetings in May. At these meetings we focused mainly on community, causing one person to comment that he was unsure what we were really accomplishing, only to see it made clear in the second gathering. There was such a growing bond that he really understood what was happening.
We have since begun meeting in a weekly small group. Michael Watkins wrote a book for business leaders called, The First 90 Days. In regards to start-ups he stated, “The prevailing mood is often one of excited confusion, and your job is to channel that energy into productive direction, in part by deciding what not to do.”[9]
Our weekly small group in the months leading up to our launch is specifically designed to cover our core values as a way to nail down the basics. We want to focus on our mission. We want to determine what God has called us to do and do only that.
Allowing God to orchestrate us is the benefit of being a missional church. “The old paradigm taught that if you have the right teaching, you will experience God. The new paradigm says that if you experience God, you will have the right teaching.”[10] We want to peel away the layers of church norms that have built up over the years in search of the New Testament church experience recorded in Acts 2:42-47.
THE CHALLENGE/REALITY OF THE POSTMODERN COMMUNITY
Our area is not a bastion of the stereotypical postmodern community. There are pockets and there is an increase in postmodern thought and lifestyle in Annapolis. However, as a missional church we wanted to engage the emerging culture in our area. We set about to do a video documentary regarding emerging views on spirituality. The project involved a short survey, followed by an invitation to participate in an on-camera interview. The results were not good. Only a few would participate in the survey and no one would go on camera.
The responses taught us a lot about our area. The overwhelming unity of answers was that spiritual answers were a private matter and that they were annoyed by being asked. One person who was asked politely if she was interested in taking the survey had us kicked out of the park in which we were canvassing. This was not the success for which we had hoped.
The unchurched in our area are decidedly so. There is a great distrust of church. This area is historically religious, but that has given way to nominalism, and that has jaded our target people. One day, while working on our statement of beliefs, I was wrestling with how the presentation would affect unchurched viewers. I struck up a conversation with a guy, 21, and asked for his opinion. He stated that he didn’t go to church. I told him that was why I felt he could help, since I was starting a church for people who didn’t go to church. Throughout the conversation he told me three other times that he did not go to church, and never really helped me with my project.
I believe there is an emergence occurring. It is an emergence of the unchurched. This area needs a church that is radically different from the norms of the stereotypical church. It needs one that intentionally engages the world outside its walls. I think our target people need to see the church in action doing what it says it is about, living missionally.
Some in the Emerging Church movement have started trends, mimicking the world in some ways. Art Lindsay penned the words, “Above all we need caution about tying our methods too closely to a passing trend like Postmodernity.”[11] I’m not interested in pursuing trends in methodology for the sake of trendiness. I’m in favor of using methods that connect with the unchurched in order to bring them to Christ. I think that the emerging generation is smart enough to know whether you are doing something for the sake of trends or whether it is authentically you, and to be cogent you had better be real.
We must not be a parasite in this community, looking to only take and provide for ourselves. We must provide for this community. I believe that the greatest impact we can have is through servant evangelism. In a survey regarding community needs with community leaders, the top needs cited by everyone were: care for the poor, teens and traffic. So our servanthood will begin in those areas. We have prioritized ministry to teens by bringing in Matt, our youth pastor, and will be working to help the homeless. While we’re probably unable to do much to alleviate traffic, we can distribute drinks at intersections prone to back-ups and beautification in the median strips. We must be a tangible force serving our community.
THE PREPARATION
In order for SRC to become the missional church God expects us to be, we will need to prepare ourselves to that end. The preparation must begin with me. As I look at my strengths and weaknesses, discerning the pastor God is shaping in me, I feel my greatest preparation priorities are in the following areas: leadership, higher education, and preaching/communicating.
Leadership books are a dime a dozen. What I have come to understand is that books are tools, some work in different circumstances. The Bible talks about the spiritual gift of leadership.[12] I believe God has gifted me for leading. I think this is important in light of the church plant. Ed Stetzer wrote, “Church Planters who are committed to communicate Christ, who are immersed in the postmodern culture, and who do not feel constrained by the traditional patterns of the ‘old church’ will be the best change agents.”[13]
If I am not starting a church to be a change agent, then I might as well walk away. I want to change the way the church exists and interacts. I want the community to be changed because of the church. I must develop myself to lead that change. The main thing that comes to mind is that Christ said, “Wisdom is proven right by her action.”[14] The fear of failure can be paralyzing and creates inaction. As a young leader the biggest step in leadership is taking wise action.
There are many disciplines with which I have not had experience. I’m learning at an accelerated rate now that we’re planting. I feel learning and education must be high priorities for my own preparation. I’ve promised my core team that I’m not the pastor today that I will be tomorrow. Education exposes me to think in new ways. I place a high value on education. The area in which we are planting requires it as well. The number of people with graduate degrees in the area continues to rise. In some ways I feel that I need education as a platform with this community.
Preaching is another area in which I feel gifted. It has been a strength that I enjoy and see great productivity with. Speech and rhetoric are areas of interest for me, and I am observing changes in speech from government to broadcasting media. I think that preaching is still the way God chooses to move men’s hearts toward Him. I place a high priority on developing myself as a communicator. But I want to go beyond moving rhetoric, I want the preaching of God’s word to transform the human life. Graham Johnson expresses what I feel, “When you know the right switches to flip, you may be tempted to preach in order to garner a response. But just because something works doesn’t make it right or biblical.”[15]
I want to grab people’s imaginations and take them someplace they did not expect to go, where they can gain a new perspective on God’s word.[16] I want them to be moved to grasp God’s truth. Art Lindsay asserts, “Truth is the decisive issue of our time, and the ability to communicate absolutes without absolutism is an essential precondition for the gospel (and other truths) to be heard.”[17]
In addition to personal preparation there are matters of corporate development. The launch team must come to the pace where they totally understand the mission of the church and embrace it. This will involve communicating it often, and modeling the mission myself.
We also need to embed the core values in our team. Core values are the non-negotiables that form the matrix for all ministries we do and decisions we make. If we don’t value these things we are not who we say we are. In these months leading up to the launch it is critical that we make these values equal our identity.[18]
We also need to prepare by engaging the unchurched. We are implementing an initiative called house to house. We are inviting unchurched friends and neighbors to our homes just to hang out and build relationships for a platform to share Christ this summer. Engaging the lost is the life of a new church. Robert Webber said, “Social Networking in a post-Christian world will primarily happen when people eat together in the home of Christians and in neighborhood communities where faith is shared. Eating has always played a central role in the Christian faith.”[19]
We’ve already had questions generated about how to share our faith with others. We’re striving to help people belong first which will lead to belief, and ultimately behavior changes.[20] It probably seems strange to some but I have an admitted unbeliever on my launch team. He comes faithfully to the meetings and shares about his journey towards Christ, but admits having not yet made a faith-decision in Christ. We believe he and others like him will come to Christ when they are engaged by our church community.
We need to prepare for our corporate vision-path. This is our strategy for Christian discipleship. It is taken from Acts 2:42-47. We believe when you boil it down the church met in large groups, small groups, and prayer groups.
We want our large groups to have an atmosphere of community. We want the atmosphere of the weekend gathering to be relational, connecting relationships through time and conversation together. I envision opening an hour before service in an environment where people chat and buzz about the church and their lives. After conducting the service, people will stay on the flip-side to enjoy being together.
Our service should be about an hour giving time to music, ministry (i.e. prayer stations for the sick and needy, the Lord’s Supper, giving, etc.) and a message focused to relevant to the unbeliever with life dynamics, and challenging to the believer with faith dynamics.
Small groups are a vital link. They are where our guiding principles (community, transformation, and leadership development) are really seen most vividly in action. Andy Stanley quoted John Ortberg as saying,
“This is why the experience of authentic community is so life giving. We are taking our place in the fellowship with Life himself. When I am in isolation, I am lonely. When I am in community, I experience what might be called ‘fullness of heart.’ The human heart is forever empty if it is closed in upon itself. In community – the divine community especially – a heart comes alive.”[21]
The fact is that in healthy small groups growth is facilitated in everyone. I have seen it in the groups I have led over the last three years. I think that our culture so isolates and alienates us from others that we are robbed of the growth that Jesus provided his followers. To be healthy a small group must operate in all three guiding principles.
Community: Small group should be a relational place where people enjoy being together. The pastoral care happens in this group. Facilitators know what is going on in the lives of their group members and provide personal care at the point of need. It’s a place for living life together, moving toward Christ. Small group cannot only be community gatherings. It must also include transformation and leadership development. This is a connection place for people. We believe that to grow larger, we must grow smaller. As we grow, this should be a place of relational starts and growth.
Transformation: When God's word touches the human life and change occurs, that's transformation. Transformation is the miracle in small groups. We should come expecting a miracle. People's stories need to be told, the stories of transformation provide the energy of the small group. Small group cannot only be transformation. It must also include community and leadership development.
Leadership Development: A vision to multiply requires constant apprenticing. Small group provides development through shared responsibility. The facilitator is expected to be watching for leadership characteristics in others and empowering them. Small group cannot only be leadership development. They must also include community and transformation.
Prayer groups are a significant missing piece in many congregations today. I believe in prayer and its power through God to change things. Part of partnership with SRC is a commitment to pray and have a prayer partner. No one runs alone. Each of us needs to be praying for someone else, and be prayed for by someone else. Jimmy Long said, “In the postmodern era the tribal group or community, not the autonomous self, is the essence of existence.”[22] Prayer groups are our connection to each other and God. They are our mobilization of the corporate prayer life of the church.
CONCLUSION
We do not really know what tomorrow holds, accept that without a spirit-filled, missional church, our community will live another day without the life changing power of God. We’re assured that God doesn’t want anyone to perish.[23] He is more interested in this church being planted than we are. It was His Son who made the way and it was His Son that gave us the mission.[24]
Would Severn River Church qualify as an Emerging Church? I would say probably not. But I believe there are valuable lessons to be learned from that movement. Emphasis on mission, community, and the mobilization of ministries that do not just talk about reaching the lost, but actually do it, are all things that I have harvested from the conversation of the Emerging Church.
There are weaknesses, but there are in every system, and to focus on any system robs us of our missional focus. It is God’s call after all. He is going to provide everything we need in order to fulfill the mission and see the spiritual destiny of so many Marylanders changed for eternity.
Works Cited
Easum, Bill. Leadership On The OtherSide: No Rules, Just Clues. Nashville, Tennessee:
Abingdon Press, 2000.
Johnston, Graham. Preaching to a Postmodern World: A Guide to Reaching Twenty-first
Century Listeners. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 2001.
Jones, Tom. Church Planting From The Ground Up. Joplin, Missouri: College Press
Publishing Company, 2004.
Lindsay, Art. True Truth: Defending Absolute Truth in a Relativistic Age. Downers
Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2004.
Schlueter, Ingrid. 02/23/2006. Emerging Apostasy. Available from
http://www.Worldviewweekend.com/secure//cwnetwork/print.php?&AritcleID=504 ; internet; accessed June 10, 2006.
Stanley, Andy, Bill Willitis. Creating Community: 5 Keys To Building A Small Group
Culture. Sisters, Oregon: Multmomah Publishers, 2004.
Stetzer, Ed. Planting New Churches in a Postmodern Age. Nashville, Tennessee:
Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003.
Sweet, Leonard, Brian D. McLaren, Jerry Haselmayer. A is for Abductive: The Language
of the Emerging Church. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan,2003.
The Holy Bible, New International Version. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.
Towns, Elmer and Warren Bird. Into the Future. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book
House, 2000.
Watkins, Michael. The First 90 Days. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School
Press, 2003.
Webber, Robert E. Ancient-Future Evangelism: Making Your Church a Faith-Forming
Community. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 2003.
[1] Tom Jones, Church Planting from the Ground Up.(Joplin: College Press), 84.
[2] Bill Easum, Leadership On The OtherSide: No Rules, Just Clues. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2000), 84.
[3] Ingrid Schlueter, (2006) “Emerging Apostasy” www.worldviewweekend.com/secure//cwnetwork/print.php?&AritcleID=504
[4] www.emergentvillage.com
[5] See Appendix A
[6] Robert E. Webber, Ancient-Future Evangelism: Making Your Church a Faith-Forming Community. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2003), 39.
[7] See Appendix A
[8] See appendix B
[9] Michael Watkins, The First 90 Days. (Boston: HBS, 2003), 67.
[10] Leith Anderson, A Church for the 21st Century. (Minneapolis: Bethany, 1992), 24-25; quoted in Elmer Towns & Warren Bird, Into the Future. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2000), 66.
[11] Art Lindsay, True Truth: Defending Absolute Truth in a Relativistic Age. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004.), 66.
[12] Romans 12:8
[13] Ed Stetzer, Planting New Churches in a Postmodern Age. (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2003), 132.
[14] Matthew 11:19
[15] Graham Johnson, Preaching to a Postmodern World: A Guide to Reaching Twenty-first
Century Listeners. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2001), 61.
[16] Leonard Sweet, A is for Abductive: The Language of the Emerging Church. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003), 31.
[17] Lindsay, 20
[18] See Appendix A
[19] Webber, 58
[20] Ibid, 23
[21] John Ortberg, Everybody’s Normal till You get to Know Them. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003), 40; quoted in Andy Stanley and Bill Willits, Creating Community: 5 Keys to Building a Small Group Culture. (Sisters: Multmomah Publishers, 2004), 42.
[22] Jimmy Long Generating Hope: A Strategy for Reaching the Postmodern Generation. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1997.), 50, 147-48; quoted in Elmer Towns & Warren Bird, 60.
[23] 2 Peter 3:9
[24] Matthew 28:18-20
A Paper
Presented to
Dr. Randy Walls, D. Min.
In partial fulfillment of the requirements of
PTHB 620 Church in Emerging Culture
Benjamin E. Rainey, Jr.
June 12, 2006
INTRODUCTION
On January 29, 2006 a public announcement was made at Pasadena Assembly of God church (PAG) in Pasadena, Maryland. The announcement was made that a new church would be planted six miles south in the town of Arnold, Maryland. It was an announcement of great excitement, and I was announced to be the church planter. On February 21, 2006 everything I thought I knew about church would be seriously challenged as I was introduced to the Emerging Church movement, and contemplated what impact it would have on this developing church.
Suddenly I was confronted with questions of theory and practice with which I had never before dealt. I was deluged with the weight of responsibility I carried in this plant and the significance of the repercussions of the foundational decisions. Decisions that affect the DNA of the church as an organization, and therefore affect all progeny be it converts, disciples, or future church plants.
I found myself wrestling with the postmodern world and what affect it had on my planting scenario. Tom Jones stated, “Where modernism has emphasized ‘newness’ and innovation, postmodernism asks us as Christian people to reevaluate, reconsider, renew, regenerate, and rehearse what it means to be the church.”[1]
What does it mean to be the church? Is it possible that for generations we have bought into a compromised system? I began to believe we had. It grew out of my own experience prior to the class I attended. It began in my home two years previous when I began a small group that had dynamics that I had never experienced in any of the church programs in which I had been involved in. There was growth in my life and evident growth in others as we met together intimately, openly.
The introduction to the Emerging Church was only the confluence of my experiences with others who had similar experiences. How would this change the foundational principles of Severn River Church (SRC)? This essay is prepared in order to share the story of SRC, and show as a case study how this church is being formed to fulfill its mission now and in the future.
Bill Easum addressing the modern mindset of church growth wrote, “With such a Life Metaphor [church as machine] all one has to do to make a better church is focus on creating a better functioning machine – a little oil here or a new part there does the trick.”[2] I believe that this cold application of ecclesiastical theory has led to an isolated church, impotent in its affairs.
Leading others to discipleship in community, and in fulfilling the mission of the church has become my primary challenge. In some ways it involves reeducating Christians how to be the church, but more importantly it is becoming a movement to show the world what it is to be a church.
There certainly have been struggles within the church regarding postmodernity and a movement called the Emerging Church. A critic writes, “The fundamental problem with the emerging church is that it rejects the authority of the word of God. Emergents prefer mystery to clarity; they prefer questions to direct answers. They prefer the journey to the destination. They question and undermine and insert doubt in the minds of young people who are already swimming in a sea of postmodern confusion.”[3]
It is not my intention to join the Emergent Network[4], a friendship involved in the conversation about the future of the church in the postmodern world. Instead, I just want a missional church, united and facing the world together; much the same way that the early church did.
THE CALLING
My calling began in 2001. I had become a youth pastor and was invited to attend a leadership summit. This summit concluded with an announcement by the event planner, Mark Morrow, that he would be leaving his church in order to plant a church in Williamsburg, Virginia.
I remember thinking that the idea of starting a church was a great fit for Mark, who I greatly admired, and began praying for him and his plant. I would call it an interest at that point, but in 2003 church planting grew into a burden. It was around that time that the Assemblies of God began an initiative called, “Every Church a Parent or a Partner”. I began to learn more and more about church planting and its effectiveness in spreading the gospel among the unchurched.
In 2004 the burden had become a fixture on my heart. I conducted an extended fast, praying for God to clarify whether church planting would remain a burden or if indeed God was calling me to church planting. It was during that fast that God confirmed his calling in me.
I immediately met with my senior pastor and shared my calling with him. He affirmed the call and we began pursuing a plant with the Potomac District’s approval and oversight. Our church board supported it and worked to organize a plan for the transition. It was a great step of faith for a church of 180 people.
THE VISION
The vision came together as I began praying. The Lord began to show me where to go and what to do. We picked a location half-way between Pasadena and Annapolis, called the Broadneck Peninsula. It is where I grew up, and is a fascinating area rich with history and growing in its significance to affect the future of Maryland.
Our vision is that SRC will be a strategic location from which to launch a movement of churches. We will target Annapolis and its outlying communities; we will change this area and affect the spiritual destiny of Maryland.[5]
I believe that this area is in need of a Pentecostal church, missionally focused, authentic in its community to accomplish that vision. Robert Webber said, “We encounter Jesus through the church as it embodies truth. Conversion is not merely embracing an intellectual idea; it is taking one’s place within the body of people who confess Christ and seek to live out the kingdom of Jesus. Thus one does not merely know intellectually but one knows holistically in community.”[6] The mission is, of course, an echo of the great commission of Christ. I think that every church’s mission statement should be roughly the same. Our mission statement states it this way, “The mission of SRC is to become a significant church in the greater Annapolis area; making disciples, baptizing them, and teaching them to obey God’s word.”[7]
This is the mission of the body of Christ. Visions change. The mission will not, until the return of Christ. SRC is built on three guiding principles, that we see intrinsic in that mission: Community, Transformation, and Leadership Development.
THE TARGET
Our area is a steady one. It is not a growth area, like other Maryland counties. Home to 107,000 residents, the peninsula serves as a bedroom community for Baltimore, Annapolis, and Washington D.C. This community is trending older according to a 2005 census review.[8] Currently the majority of the population is between 20 and 45, however the 35 to 45 contingent, the largest segment, are about to move into the older bracket by 2010 thus showing an aging trend. The average age in our target community is 40.2. They are evenly distributed between men and women. This area is very mobile with the average family owning 2 cars, and having children attending elementary or middle school.
Affluence above national standards is derived from the majority white collar workforce and education levels. Anne Arundel County is the third highest educated county in Maryland with one out of five residents holding a graduate degree. These things contribute to the high transience rate, with families moving into and out of the area every five years, on average. Racially this area is predominantly white at almost 90%.
We will be targeting the residents of our target area. To zero in on any one section of our demographic is arrogant and irresponsible. I believe that we will naturally build affinities for our community, but to exclude any segment of our population, including those often overlooked by other churches is not missional.
The target is people whether it is the fifty-something owner of the local coffee shop, the blue haired kid working his counter, the forty-something African-American facilities manager at the college SRC rents from, or the homeless man on the street corner. My heart for ministry beats for all of them. God has called us to all of these. We need to watch for what God is doing and jump on board with that. He has us meeting on a community college campus; we’d better be reaching out to those students. God has even given us a member of our launch team who is a student there. We’ll pursue it for the sake of the mission.
THE CHURCH
The journey for us as a church so far has been a good one. It began with two informational meetings at PAG in the month of February. These meetings were held for the whole congregation, and we offered an invitation for anyone that wanted to come to SRC to attend a pre-commitment meeting at my house. A group of about twenty participated.
This is a unique group, and clearly put together by God. We have three couples over forty and six couples under thirty, one single, two children, and two teens. One couple is relocating from Pennsylvania to serve as our youth pastors. One couple was educated at Lee University and is currently stationed at the United States Naval Academy with a call to chaplaincy. One couple came out of a pastor’s home and knows what “ministry in the trenches” is really like. Many of the others are recent converts and add a lot of freshness and excitement with a vision for growing ministry roles.
Coming out of the pre-commitment meetings, I conducted personal interviews with each of the above, and we set ourselves to meet for two fellowship meetings in May. At these meetings we focused mainly on community, causing one person to comment that he was unsure what we were really accomplishing, only to see it made clear in the second gathering. There was such a growing bond that he really understood what was happening.
We have since begun meeting in a weekly small group. Michael Watkins wrote a book for business leaders called, The First 90 Days. In regards to start-ups he stated, “The prevailing mood is often one of excited confusion, and your job is to channel that energy into productive direction, in part by deciding what not to do.”[9]
Our weekly small group in the months leading up to our launch is specifically designed to cover our core values as a way to nail down the basics. We want to focus on our mission. We want to determine what God has called us to do and do only that.
Allowing God to orchestrate us is the benefit of being a missional church. “The old paradigm taught that if you have the right teaching, you will experience God. The new paradigm says that if you experience God, you will have the right teaching.”[10] We want to peel away the layers of church norms that have built up over the years in search of the New Testament church experience recorded in Acts 2:42-47.
THE CHALLENGE/REALITY OF THE POSTMODERN COMMUNITY
Our area is not a bastion of the stereotypical postmodern community. There are pockets and there is an increase in postmodern thought and lifestyle in Annapolis. However, as a missional church we wanted to engage the emerging culture in our area. We set about to do a video documentary regarding emerging views on spirituality. The project involved a short survey, followed by an invitation to participate in an on-camera interview. The results were not good. Only a few would participate in the survey and no one would go on camera.
The responses taught us a lot about our area. The overwhelming unity of answers was that spiritual answers were a private matter and that they were annoyed by being asked. One person who was asked politely if she was interested in taking the survey had us kicked out of the park in which we were canvassing. This was not the success for which we had hoped.
The unchurched in our area are decidedly so. There is a great distrust of church. This area is historically religious, but that has given way to nominalism, and that has jaded our target people. One day, while working on our statement of beliefs, I was wrestling with how the presentation would affect unchurched viewers. I struck up a conversation with a guy, 21, and asked for his opinion. He stated that he didn’t go to church. I told him that was why I felt he could help, since I was starting a church for people who didn’t go to church. Throughout the conversation he told me three other times that he did not go to church, and never really helped me with my project.
I believe there is an emergence occurring. It is an emergence of the unchurched. This area needs a church that is radically different from the norms of the stereotypical church. It needs one that intentionally engages the world outside its walls. I think our target people need to see the church in action doing what it says it is about, living missionally.
Some in the Emerging Church movement have started trends, mimicking the world in some ways. Art Lindsay penned the words, “Above all we need caution about tying our methods too closely to a passing trend like Postmodernity.”[11] I’m not interested in pursuing trends in methodology for the sake of trendiness. I’m in favor of using methods that connect with the unchurched in order to bring them to Christ. I think that the emerging generation is smart enough to know whether you are doing something for the sake of trends or whether it is authentically you, and to be cogent you had better be real.
We must not be a parasite in this community, looking to only take and provide for ourselves. We must provide for this community. I believe that the greatest impact we can have is through servant evangelism. In a survey regarding community needs with community leaders, the top needs cited by everyone were: care for the poor, teens and traffic. So our servanthood will begin in those areas. We have prioritized ministry to teens by bringing in Matt, our youth pastor, and will be working to help the homeless. While we’re probably unable to do much to alleviate traffic, we can distribute drinks at intersections prone to back-ups and beautification in the median strips. We must be a tangible force serving our community.
THE PREPARATION
In order for SRC to become the missional church God expects us to be, we will need to prepare ourselves to that end. The preparation must begin with me. As I look at my strengths and weaknesses, discerning the pastor God is shaping in me, I feel my greatest preparation priorities are in the following areas: leadership, higher education, and preaching/communicating.
Leadership books are a dime a dozen. What I have come to understand is that books are tools, some work in different circumstances. The Bible talks about the spiritual gift of leadership.[12] I believe God has gifted me for leading. I think this is important in light of the church plant. Ed Stetzer wrote, “Church Planters who are committed to communicate Christ, who are immersed in the postmodern culture, and who do not feel constrained by the traditional patterns of the ‘old church’ will be the best change agents.”[13]
If I am not starting a church to be a change agent, then I might as well walk away. I want to change the way the church exists and interacts. I want the community to be changed because of the church. I must develop myself to lead that change. The main thing that comes to mind is that Christ said, “Wisdom is proven right by her action.”[14] The fear of failure can be paralyzing and creates inaction. As a young leader the biggest step in leadership is taking wise action.
There are many disciplines with which I have not had experience. I’m learning at an accelerated rate now that we’re planting. I feel learning and education must be high priorities for my own preparation. I’ve promised my core team that I’m not the pastor today that I will be tomorrow. Education exposes me to think in new ways. I place a high value on education. The area in which we are planting requires it as well. The number of people with graduate degrees in the area continues to rise. In some ways I feel that I need education as a platform with this community.
Preaching is another area in which I feel gifted. It has been a strength that I enjoy and see great productivity with. Speech and rhetoric are areas of interest for me, and I am observing changes in speech from government to broadcasting media. I think that preaching is still the way God chooses to move men’s hearts toward Him. I place a high priority on developing myself as a communicator. But I want to go beyond moving rhetoric, I want the preaching of God’s word to transform the human life. Graham Johnson expresses what I feel, “When you know the right switches to flip, you may be tempted to preach in order to garner a response. But just because something works doesn’t make it right or biblical.”[15]
I want to grab people’s imaginations and take them someplace they did not expect to go, where they can gain a new perspective on God’s word.[16] I want them to be moved to grasp God’s truth. Art Lindsay asserts, “Truth is the decisive issue of our time, and the ability to communicate absolutes without absolutism is an essential precondition for the gospel (and other truths) to be heard.”[17]
In addition to personal preparation there are matters of corporate development. The launch team must come to the pace where they totally understand the mission of the church and embrace it. This will involve communicating it often, and modeling the mission myself.
We also need to embed the core values in our team. Core values are the non-negotiables that form the matrix for all ministries we do and decisions we make. If we don’t value these things we are not who we say we are. In these months leading up to the launch it is critical that we make these values equal our identity.[18]
We also need to prepare by engaging the unchurched. We are implementing an initiative called house to house. We are inviting unchurched friends and neighbors to our homes just to hang out and build relationships for a platform to share Christ this summer. Engaging the lost is the life of a new church. Robert Webber said, “Social Networking in a post-Christian world will primarily happen when people eat together in the home of Christians and in neighborhood communities where faith is shared. Eating has always played a central role in the Christian faith.”[19]
We’ve already had questions generated about how to share our faith with others. We’re striving to help people belong first which will lead to belief, and ultimately behavior changes.[20] It probably seems strange to some but I have an admitted unbeliever on my launch team. He comes faithfully to the meetings and shares about his journey towards Christ, but admits having not yet made a faith-decision in Christ. We believe he and others like him will come to Christ when they are engaged by our church community.
We need to prepare for our corporate vision-path. This is our strategy for Christian discipleship. It is taken from Acts 2:42-47. We believe when you boil it down the church met in large groups, small groups, and prayer groups.
We want our large groups to have an atmosphere of community. We want the atmosphere of the weekend gathering to be relational, connecting relationships through time and conversation together. I envision opening an hour before service in an environment where people chat and buzz about the church and their lives. After conducting the service, people will stay on the flip-side to enjoy being together.
Our service should be about an hour giving time to music, ministry (i.e. prayer stations for the sick and needy, the Lord’s Supper, giving, etc.) and a message focused to relevant to the unbeliever with life dynamics, and challenging to the believer with faith dynamics.
Small groups are a vital link. They are where our guiding principles (community, transformation, and leadership development) are really seen most vividly in action. Andy Stanley quoted John Ortberg as saying,
“This is why the experience of authentic community is so life giving. We are taking our place in the fellowship with Life himself. When I am in isolation, I am lonely. When I am in community, I experience what might be called ‘fullness of heart.’ The human heart is forever empty if it is closed in upon itself. In community – the divine community especially – a heart comes alive.”[21]
The fact is that in healthy small groups growth is facilitated in everyone. I have seen it in the groups I have led over the last three years. I think that our culture so isolates and alienates us from others that we are robbed of the growth that Jesus provided his followers. To be healthy a small group must operate in all three guiding principles.
Community: Small group should be a relational place where people enjoy being together. The pastoral care happens in this group. Facilitators know what is going on in the lives of their group members and provide personal care at the point of need. It’s a place for living life together, moving toward Christ. Small group cannot only be community gatherings. It must also include transformation and leadership development. This is a connection place for people. We believe that to grow larger, we must grow smaller. As we grow, this should be a place of relational starts and growth.
Transformation: When God's word touches the human life and change occurs, that's transformation. Transformation is the miracle in small groups. We should come expecting a miracle. People's stories need to be told, the stories of transformation provide the energy of the small group. Small group cannot only be transformation. It must also include community and leadership development.
Leadership Development: A vision to multiply requires constant apprenticing. Small group provides development through shared responsibility. The facilitator is expected to be watching for leadership characteristics in others and empowering them. Small group cannot only be leadership development. They must also include community and transformation.
Prayer groups are a significant missing piece in many congregations today. I believe in prayer and its power through God to change things. Part of partnership with SRC is a commitment to pray and have a prayer partner. No one runs alone. Each of us needs to be praying for someone else, and be prayed for by someone else. Jimmy Long said, “In the postmodern era the tribal group or community, not the autonomous self, is the essence of existence.”[22] Prayer groups are our connection to each other and God. They are our mobilization of the corporate prayer life of the church.
CONCLUSION
We do not really know what tomorrow holds, accept that without a spirit-filled, missional church, our community will live another day without the life changing power of God. We’re assured that God doesn’t want anyone to perish.[23] He is more interested in this church being planted than we are. It was His Son who made the way and it was His Son that gave us the mission.[24]
Would Severn River Church qualify as an Emerging Church? I would say probably not. But I believe there are valuable lessons to be learned from that movement. Emphasis on mission, community, and the mobilization of ministries that do not just talk about reaching the lost, but actually do it, are all things that I have harvested from the conversation of the Emerging Church.
There are weaknesses, but there are in every system, and to focus on any system robs us of our missional focus. It is God’s call after all. He is going to provide everything we need in order to fulfill the mission and see the spiritual destiny of so many Marylanders changed for eternity.
Works Cited
Easum, Bill. Leadership On The OtherSide: No Rules, Just Clues. Nashville, Tennessee:
Abingdon Press, 2000.
Johnston, Graham. Preaching to a Postmodern World: A Guide to Reaching Twenty-first
Century Listeners. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 2001.
Jones, Tom. Church Planting From The Ground Up. Joplin, Missouri: College Press
Publishing Company, 2004.
Lindsay, Art. True Truth: Defending Absolute Truth in a Relativistic Age. Downers
Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2004.
Schlueter, Ingrid. 02/23/2006. Emerging Apostasy. Available from
http://www.Worldviewweekend.com/secure//cwnetwork/print.php?&AritcleID=504 ; internet; accessed June 10, 2006.
Stanley, Andy, Bill Willitis. Creating Community: 5 Keys To Building A Small Group
Culture. Sisters, Oregon: Multmomah Publishers, 2004.
Stetzer, Ed. Planting New Churches in a Postmodern Age. Nashville, Tennessee:
Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003.
Sweet, Leonard, Brian D. McLaren, Jerry Haselmayer. A is for Abductive: The Language
of the Emerging Church. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan,2003.
The Holy Bible, New International Version. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.
Towns, Elmer and Warren Bird. Into the Future. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book
House, 2000.
Watkins, Michael. The First 90 Days. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School
Press, 2003.
Webber, Robert E. Ancient-Future Evangelism: Making Your Church a Faith-Forming
Community. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 2003.
[1] Tom Jones, Church Planting from the Ground Up.(Joplin: College Press), 84.
[2] Bill Easum, Leadership On The OtherSide: No Rules, Just Clues. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2000), 84.
[3] Ingrid Schlueter, (2006) “Emerging Apostasy” www.worldviewweekend.com/secure//cwnetwork/print.php?&AritcleID=504
[4] www.emergentvillage.com
[5] See Appendix A
[6] Robert E. Webber, Ancient-Future Evangelism: Making Your Church a Faith-Forming Community. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2003), 39.
[7] See Appendix A
[8] See appendix B
[9] Michael Watkins, The First 90 Days. (Boston: HBS, 2003), 67.
[10] Leith Anderson, A Church for the 21st Century. (Minneapolis: Bethany, 1992), 24-25; quoted in Elmer Towns & Warren Bird, Into the Future. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2000), 66.
[11] Art Lindsay, True Truth: Defending Absolute Truth in a Relativistic Age. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004.), 66.
[12] Romans 12:8
[13] Ed Stetzer, Planting New Churches in a Postmodern Age. (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2003), 132.
[14] Matthew 11:19
[15] Graham Johnson, Preaching to a Postmodern World: A Guide to Reaching Twenty-first
Century Listeners. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2001), 61.
[16] Leonard Sweet, A is for Abductive: The Language of the Emerging Church. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003), 31.
[17] Lindsay, 20
[18] See Appendix A
[19] Webber, 58
[20] Ibid, 23
[21] John Ortberg, Everybody’s Normal till You get to Know Them. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003), 40; quoted in Andy Stanley and Bill Willits, Creating Community: 5 Keys to Building a Small Group Culture. (Sisters: Multmomah Publishers, 2004), 42.
[22] Jimmy Long Generating Hope: A Strategy for Reaching the Postmodern Generation. (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1997.), 50, 147-48; quoted in Elmer Towns & Warren Bird, 60.
[23] 2 Peter 3:9
[24] Matthew 28:18-20
Thursday, June 08, 2006
News
Hey PRAISE THE LORD. Today I got a check in the mail from the District Woman's Ministry for $1000.00 for SRC. This is an answer to our prayers, keep praying.
The Papers below are due next monday, thought I'd post 'em. Enjoy them. The first one will be readable for everyone. The second one may be a bit more complicated, but hopefully still a worthwhile read.
--Ben
The Papers below are due next monday, thought I'd post 'em. Enjoy them. The first one will be readable for everyone. The second one may be a bit more complicated, but hopefully still a worthwhile read.
--Ben
A Reflection of visits to 2 emerging churches in Philly
The Well and The Circle Of Hope: A Reflection Paper
A Paper
Presented to
Dr. Randy Walls, D. Min.
In partial fulfillment of the requirements of
PTHB 620 Church in Emerging Culture
Benjamin E. Rainey, Jr.
June 12, 2006
INTRODUCTION
The off-campus studies of The Well and The Circle of Hope was an enlightening foray into styles of churches with which I had little experience. It was a lot of fun and very informative. This paper will seek to compile reflections on what I heard and saw, and explore ongoing feelings I’ve had since.
THE WELL
The first visit we made was to The Well. After exiting the interstate and meandering through neighborhoods, we came to a small piece of commercial property in Feasterville, Pa. The warehouse, a former machine shop, had been converted into the gathering place for this community of faith.
They are reaching out to the sub-urban, artist culture in their community. Art has been incorporated in a significant way as part of the vision. Even from their website you get the feeling that this is not a typical church. In some ways the majority of Christians may wonder if this is indeed a church at all. Its décor elucidates a minimal reference to God, Christ, or any of the other iconographic expression of Christianity, instead the paucity of religious memorabilia creates an environment in which artists throughout the community can come feeling comfortable to express themselves. The Well often hosts art shows so you enter feeling like you’ve walked into a gallery rather than feeling as though they were going to church.
Personally I found the location hard to find. That may be attributable to my being from out of town. I didn’t think the building was very clearly marked, but that may have been because of the lack of “churchiness”. The Well is certainly not “churchy”, in fact they refer to themselves as a “community” and not a church.
Our interview with one of the pastors was a great glimpse into the real life of a pastor trying to help people find Jesus. Brad Jackson introduced himself and the building; allowing us to look around at the unique set-up. The back was set very much like a trendy meeting place for the coffee-addicted and art savvy, with couches, end tables, lamps and comfortable chairs. We were surrounded with art of all kinds. A personal signature of this church was found around the top of the walls. Square paintings, produced during the sermon as part of the worship, we secured side by side to create a border.
The front of the building was set up as a meeting auditorium including instruments and a chair on a stage, surrounded with chairs on three sides. This area was all very dark; the stage was lit by theatrical lighting.
Our interview was very helpful in understanding what this community was about. In a very unassuming way (though at times it seemed he feigned ignorance) our host shared about his life and journey of the community at The Well. He was open with sharing his mistakes and those of the community. Originally started in a more traditional style, they found themselves not fulfilling the mission that they were called to, so they started over.
There were things that he indicated were still problems for them as a community. Their vision brought its unique problems. He talked about the problems of youth. As a community that mainly reaches 18-30 year olds, he lamented that he wished for more, older adults for lending wisdom and maturity. He shared that there were leadership issues. He has a church governance set up that allowed leadership for life, and had an issue with an elder who caused a lot of problems for both pastor and community. He also seemed to express that there were problems in the area of leadership succession. He had just announced his resignation, and seemed uncertain about the long-term future of The Well.
I was impressed with their missional stance of trying to reach artists. There seemed to be no road blocks or half measures in pursuit of that end. I was also struck by the concern for social justice issues. This was demonstrated by their movie night dedicated to the needs of children in Africa and major emphasis on their website.
I liked the feeling of the space. I liked the relaxed atmosphere, and 100% intentional pursuit of the mission.
I didn’t feel they had good answers for everything. They struggled with what to do with children and teens. They also left me wondering if the emerging church was just a glorified youth group, a bunch of whiny white kids who wanted to have a “cool” church.
THE CIRCLE OF HOPE
The Circle of Hope was considerably different. Their pastor, Rod White, was more pretentious in a passive aggressive way. We met with him in his Philadelphia home. His home was beautiful. Sitting in his living room we were told the story of how the Circle of Hope began.
He and his wife had been pastoring a church of the Brethren in Christ. They were in small town Pennsylvania when they attended a conference promoting urban ministry. They both felt called to minister in an urban setting, and they thought they would head to Africa or Southeast Asia, but God had other plans.
Their denomination sent them to see Washington, D.C. and New York City. (The denomination had property in New York, and would have preferred them to go there.) But neither place felt right to them. So they checked out Philadelphia, in their own state, and knew that was where God wanted them.
Their denomination had a plan to form a ring of churches around the outskirts of the city, but Rod felt strongly they should move right into the heart of the city. He said they, “parachuted in”. They had no core of people, just themselves and their children. He called it their “family business”.
His story went on to describe his experience in church planting. It was more than just a discussion on the emergence of the church. He was really inspirational to me. I’ll be planting a church this fall.
He started by walking the streets. He believed that God was doing something and he just needed to figure out what it is and get on it. He believed that God already had the people there that He wanted to start the church with. So each day he would walk up and talk to people essentially saying, “Hey, I’m trying to start a church. Do you know anyone who could help me?”
He spent time in coffee shops, schools, and gave himself assignments each day to find people. He knew they were out there; he just had to go find them.
One of his approaches was simply to act helpless. He would ask for directions and then pop the question looking for someone to help him start the church. He started this in October and by January had put together a launch team. It was at this point in the conversation that he shared an important principle that guides their church. He said that he was really interested in the church, not the individual. He felt that the church together could accomplish the mission much more than individuals. This influenced decisions like the lack of mass mailings. He didn’t want people to come to his church that would come because of a mass mailing. It was a principle emphasized in their cell groups. Building the church on cell groups puts the mission on the group rather than an individual.
It is not a clean system. Multiple twenty-somethings in leadership, “Excelling at doing it badly”, always makes things messy, but it is better to do things as the Church. Though he downplayed their organizational structure, they seemed very organized, requiring that cells divide every year and that leaders function in very specific ways. They also celebrate their unity and diversity. Their church has multiple locations now, and functions individually except for a regular love feast where they come together to worship and celebrate what God is doing.
His story was quite inspirational. Though they are not the typical emerging church, like you read about in Christianity Today, there was something happening. There was definitely something emerging among the transgenders, prostitutes, and others in the Center City of Philadelphia. There was the sensation of excitement that in places and ways that the modern American church had moved away from, there was still a missional church pursuing the mission fully focused on that goal.
CONCLUSION
Both of these trips were beneficial and enlightening. I preferred the trip to The Circle, but learned a lot at both. It challenged me, in light of church planting to put a lot of thought into the mission of our church and how we’ll affect our target area, completely committed to the mission. (Matt. 28:18-20)
A Paper
Presented to
Dr. Randy Walls, D. Min.
In partial fulfillment of the requirements of
PTHB 620 Church in Emerging Culture
Benjamin E. Rainey, Jr.
June 12, 2006
INTRODUCTION
The off-campus studies of The Well and The Circle of Hope was an enlightening foray into styles of churches with which I had little experience. It was a lot of fun and very informative. This paper will seek to compile reflections on what I heard and saw, and explore ongoing feelings I’ve had since.
THE WELL
The first visit we made was to The Well. After exiting the interstate and meandering through neighborhoods, we came to a small piece of commercial property in Feasterville, Pa. The warehouse, a former machine shop, had been converted into the gathering place for this community of faith.
They are reaching out to the sub-urban, artist culture in their community. Art has been incorporated in a significant way as part of the vision. Even from their website you get the feeling that this is not a typical church. In some ways the majority of Christians may wonder if this is indeed a church at all. Its décor elucidates a minimal reference to God, Christ, or any of the other iconographic expression of Christianity, instead the paucity of religious memorabilia creates an environment in which artists throughout the community can come feeling comfortable to express themselves. The Well often hosts art shows so you enter feeling like you’ve walked into a gallery rather than feeling as though they were going to church.
Personally I found the location hard to find. That may be attributable to my being from out of town. I didn’t think the building was very clearly marked, but that may have been because of the lack of “churchiness”. The Well is certainly not “churchy”, in fact they refer to themselves as a “community” and not a church.
Our interview with one of the pastors was a great glimpse into the real life of a pastor trying to help people find Jesus. Brad Jackson introduced himself and the building; allowing us to look around at the unique set-up. The back was set very much like a trendy meeting place for the coffee-addicted and art savvy, with couches, end tables, lamps and comfortable chairs. We were surrounded with art of all kinds. A personal signature of this church was found around the top of the walls. Square paintings, produced during the sermon as part of the worship, we secured side by side to create a border.
The front of the building was set up as a meeting auditorium including instruments and a chair on a stage, surrounded with chairs on three sides. This area was all very dark; the stage was lit by theatrical lighting.
Our interview was very helpful in understanding what this community was about. In a very unassuming way (though at times it seemed he feigned ignorance) our host shared about his life and journey of the community at The Well. He was open with sharing his mistakes and those of the community. Originally started in a more traditional style, they found themselves not fulfilling the mission that they were called to, so they started over.
There were things that he indicated were still problems for them as a community. Their vision brought its unique problems. He talked about the problems of youth. As a community that mainly reaches 18-30 year olds, he lamented that he wished for more, older adults for lending wisdom and maturity. He shared that there were leadership issues. He has a church governance set up that allowed leadership for life, and had an issue with an elder who caused a lot of problems for both pastor and community. He also seemed to express that there were problems in the area of leadership succession. He had just announced his resignation, and seemed uncertain about the long-term future of The Well.
I was impressed with their missional stance of trying to reach artists. There seemed to be no road blocks or half measures in pursuit of that end. I was also struck by the concern for social justice issues. This was demonstrated by their movie night dedicated to the needs of children in Africa and major emphasis on their website.
I liked the feeling of the space. I liked the relaxed atmosphere, and 100% intentional pursuit of the mission.
I didn’t feel they had good answers for everything. They struggled with what to do with children and teens. They also left me wondering if the emerging church was just a glorified youth group, a bunch of whiny white kids who wanted to have a “cool” church.
THE CIRCLE OF HOPE
The Circle of Hope was considerably different. Their pastor, Rod White, was more pretentious in a passive aggressive way. We met with him in his Philadelphia home. His home was beautiful. Sitting in his living room we were told the story of how the Circle of Hope began.
He and his wife had been pastoring a church of the Brethren in Christ. They were in small town Pennsylvania when they attended a conference promoting urban ministry. They both felt called to minister in an urban setting, and they thought they would head to Africa or Southeast Asia, but God had other plans.
Their denomination sent them to see Washington, D.C. and New York City. (The denomination had property in New York, and would have preferred them to go there.) But neither place felt right to them. So they checked out Philadelphia, in their own state, and knew that was where God wanted them.
Their denomination had a plan to form a ring of churches around the outskirts of the city, but Rod felt strongly they should move right into the heart of the city. He said they, “parachuted in”. They had no core of people, just themselves and their children. He called it their “family business”.
His story went on to describe his experience in church planting. It was more than just a discussion on the emergence of the church. He was really inspirational to me. I’ll be planting a church this fall.
He started by walking the streets. He believed that God was doing something and he just needed to figure out what it is and get on it. He believed that God already had the people there that He wanted to start the church with. So each day he would walk up and talk to people essentially saying, “Hey, I’m trying to start a church. Do you know anyone who could help me?”
He spent time in coffee shops, schools, and gave himself assignments each day to find people. He knew they were out there; he just had to go find them.
One of his approaches was simply to act helpless. He would ask for directions and then pop the question looking for someone to help him start the church. He started this in October and by January had put together a launch team. It was at this point in the conversation that he shared an important principle that guides their church. He said that he was really interested in the church, not the individual. He felt that the church together could accomplish the mission much more than individuals. This influenced decisions like the lack of mass mailings. He didn’t want people to come to his church that would come because of a mass mailing. It was a principle emphasized in their cell groups. Building the church on cell groups puts the mission on the group rather than an individual.
It is not a clean system. Multiple twenty-somethings in leadership, “Excelling at doing it badly”, always makes things messy, but it is better to do things as the Church. Though he downplayed their organizational structure, they seemed very organized, requiring that cells divide every year and that leaders function in very specific ways. They also celebrate their unity and diversity. Their church has multiple locations now, and functions individually except for a regular love feast where they come together to worship and celebrate what God is doing.
His story was quite inspirational. Though they are not the typical emerging church, like you read about in Christianity Today, there was something happening. There was definitely something emerging among the transgenders, prostitutes, and others in the Center City of Philadelphia. There was the sensation of excitement that in places and ways that the modern American church had moved away from, there was still a missional church pursuing the mission fully focused on that goal.
CONCLUSION
Both of these trips were beneficial and enlightening. I preferred the trip to The Circle, but learned a lot at both. It challenged me, in light of church planting to put a lot of thought into the mission of our church and how we’ll affect our target area, completely committed to the mission. (Matt. 28:18-20)
Theology of Emergence in Scripture
Biblical Theology of Emergence
A Paper
Presented to
Dr. Randy Walls, D. Min.
In partial fulfillment of the requirements of
PTHB 620 Church in Emerging Culture
Benjamin E. Rainey, Jr.
June 12, 2006
INTRODUCTION
A major struggle facing today’s church, and increasingly causing conflict for congregations and denominations alike, is how to deal with the Emerging Church. The Emerging Church is the collection of thoughts and conversations about how the church needs to change in order to reach the postmodern segment of our culture. These changes are in some ways radical and revolutionary for the church standing on the threshold of the future.
As with any change there are those who lead the way through experimentation, reflection and provocation. There are others who will come along more slowly, and still others who will never embrace it. This is not a new situation. This paper will seek to elicit from scripture, examples from which we can see similar changes facing the Christian church today. Through reflection I hope to outline important keys to understanding the Emerging Church.
I believe there is a fifty year period of turbulent emergence that can serve as a biblical backdrop from which we can draw conclusions. This period began immediately prior to Jesus’ birth, and continued passed His death. In this period three emergences occurred, and at each time those who were trying to honor God found themselves on divided sides of the issue. They are listed as follows: 1.) Emergence of the Kingdom, 2.) Emergence of Pentecost, and 3.) Emergence of the Gentile Church.
EMERGENCE OF THE KINGDOM
An indicative point of the Emerging Church is an Incarnational theology. It is a return of sorts to seeing the church as the representative body of Christ on earth; the fulfillment of God’s presence on earth. A look at each of the cited emergences will require an examination of them for similarities with today’s church.
Was there an incarnational element in the emergences of the Kingdom of God? Absolutely! Jesus Christ was the incarnation of the Kingdom. He said as much in Mark 1:15, “The time has come,…The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news.”
The revelation of Christ as Messiah was shocking to the religious leadership of His day. Jesus claimed divinity[1], the ability to heal disease and forgive sin[2], and to be the fulfillment of the prophets[3]. Yet He did not fit the mold that the Pharisees had expected. Jesus claimed to be one with the Father, but they had been trained in the law to believe that their God was one[4] not multiple persons (i.e. Father and Son). The Messiah according to the prophets, especially the exilic prophets, spoke of the Lord coming in judgment to distribute the power of God upon those who oppressed Israel[5], and would usher in a new Temple and Jerusalem[6]. They were looking for a military leader. Jesus, however, seemed to judge the Pharisees far more than the Romans. He did not fit their preconceived ideas. Jesus told parables of the kingdom of heaven[7] and when He spoke, the stories were not understandable to those who listened. The parable of the Sower[8], for instance, has been analogized often in our current context, but within the original context Jesus is speaking to an all Jewish audience, and says that the Kingdom will be sown amongst Jews, and some get into the Kingdom and some don’t. This was very different from their perceptions of what the Kingdom coming to earth would look like.
The purpose of this emergence, of course, was the fulfillment of God’s promise. Through Abraham the whole earth would be blessed[9]. But though His methods regarding the law, and the prophets were counter to what was being looked for, it was the fulfillment God had in mind.[10]
The Disciples embraced this emergence while the Pharisees led the Jews to reject it. The most interesting part to me is that the disciples accepted it without really understanding. They still had questions about the parables and struggled to comprehend what Jesus was teaching them. I think in our current society this creates a major rub. Everyone wants answers in modernity. We want answers defining Postmodernity, and its effect on Christianity. We want answers on Ecclesiology, and how the Emerging Churches will affect the church as we know it. An initial key to understanding emergence is that it always raises more questions than answers initially.
Even when Jesus was leading the disciples through the institution of the New Covenant, replacing the covenant with Abraham -- the triumphal entry, the Passion Week events, the last supper, His death and resurrection -- they still didn’t know the answers. They asked, “Lord, are You at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?”[11] They knew that something new was emerging, but they still struggled to understand.
EMERGENCE OF PENTECOST
The questions that the disciples asked themselves for years must have surfaced again in their minds as Jesus told them that they would receive power from the Holy Spirit (another person of the Godhead), and that they would be witnesses starting in Jerusalem and moving out to all of the world. This was again different from the understanding of the prophets. They wrote about the Messiah ushering all nations to come to Jerusalem not sending them out.[12] Then to complicate matters, Jesus ascends back to heaven.[13]
The only thing the disciples had to hold onto in this next emergence was the command to wait in Jerusalem. Within ten days the next emergence began. Acts 2 records for us the events of the day of Pentecost. The emergence of Pentecost was another unexpected and unknown emergence. Just fifty days after Christ’s death, while there was probably still political heat surrounding the followers of Christ, they are filled with the Holy Spirit. There is the sound of a rushing wind, cloven tongue of fire rest on each of their heads, and they began speaking in tongues. This was so apparent that people in the street heard them.[14]
Pentecost marked the emergence of the church. The incarnational element was experienced by those who were filled with the Holy Spirit. The response is seen in Acts 2:41-47,
Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day. They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and good, they gave to anyone as he had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.
The purpose of this emergence is clear in the launch of the church. The church is born and functioning, yet still struggles with its identity. Are these Messianic Jews Christians or still Jews? Do they live under the New Covenant or does some of the Old Covenant still exist for them to live under?
The methodologies of those who emerged were again in conflict. Many of the apostles stayed right in Jerusalem, only to be scattered later thought persecution. Yet Christ told them to go into all the world.[15]
One apostle did leave Jerusalem. Peter had a vision from God and an invitation to Caesarea, and he went.[16] This is where the methodology created the problems in this new Jewish sect. Peter’s vision was of a sheet containing foods that were considered unclean under Jewish law.
The whole idea of extending the gospel to the gentiles was foreign to the new church. It was further revealing God’s plan. The evidence came when Cornelius not only received Christ, but also received the baptism in the Holy Spirit with the same evidence that the Jewish church had received, that is speaking in tongues. The apostles weren’t ready for this, and Peter had to defend his actions, because his methods were far removed from the norm.
I think an important key is found here. The methods of Peter were done out of obedience to what God had told him to do. In the emerging church today I feel that nothing less that this model should be accepted. If God shows a ministry a specific call of vision to accomplish His mission, then by all means, they should pursue it. Trying to do something just for the sake of making something emerge will eventually fail anyway.
EMERGENCE OF PAUL AND WORLD MISSION
Following shortly after Peter’s experience with Cornelius the church experienced another emergence. Paul was converted to Christianity and began ministry under the reluctant permission of the other apostles. He made his ministry specifically incarnational by going to the areas of the Roman Empire that had not heard about Christ, and he presented the gospel to them. He became a leader in incarnational methodology stating, “I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessing.”[17]
His methodology was particularly suspect to the apostles in Jerusalem. The fact that Paul’s methods didn’t require the same acts of consecration as were necessary under the law of the Old Covenant was reprehensible. Paul stood up to them, recalcitrant, demanding that they not impose unnecessary law on gentile believers.
It was not necessary to first convert to Judaism in order to convert to Christianity. The major issue was circumcision. But Paul made his stand saying, “There is not Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.”[18]
His purpose was clear, to take the gospel to the world. The missions emphasis in the church today are attributable to Paul who began going to share the gospel wherever he could. And this is the key that most emphasizes the emerging church of today. It is pastors and apostles wanting to further the gospel, to share in its blessing that compels them to venture out of the accepted and normal areas of the church. It drives them to engage their culture with missional integrity.
CONCLUSION
Emerging issues in the church are not anything new. It has been a common part of the church’s history. Persecution, the Gnostic problem, Constantinianism, the Reformation, 20th century Pentecost, and now the postmodern dilemma are all emergences that the church has faced. In every situation there has been a parting of the church. There is always a tension between those holding onto the way it was and those who are shaping what it will be.
The important thing about emergence is that it will always face the church until the return of Christ. In the mean time we’re obligated to deal with each other in the love of Christ as we pursue the mission of the church. We must understand emergence will never be neat. It’s always messy and challenging to sort out. We must discern whether the methods emerging are an act of obedience, or just trendy actions driven by selfish ambitions. The entire church must remain focused on the mission. We must remember that the mission should drive our motivation. We must not allow tradition and comfort to hold us back from a missional pursuit. The Emerging Church is a church trying to find their way to accomplishing the mission.
[1] John 8:58
[2] Luke 5:20; 7:48
[3] Matthew 5:17; Luke 4:18-20; Is. 6:9-10
[4] Deuteronomy 6:4
[5] Micah 5:4-5
[6] Zechariah 6:12
[7] Matthew 13:31-52; 20:1-2
[8] Matthew 13:3-9
[9] Genesis 22:18
[10] Isaiah 6:9-13
[11] Acts 1:6
[12] Zechariah 14:14
[13] Acts 1:9
[14] Acts 2:1-8
[15] Matt 28:19
[16] Acts 10
[17] 1 Cor. 9:22b-23
[18] Col. 3:11
A Paper
Presented to
Dr. Randy Walls, D. Min.
In partial fulfillment of the requirements of
PTHB 620 Church in Emerging Culture
Benjamin E. Rainey, Jr.
June 12, 2006
INTRODUCTION
A major struggle facing today’s church, and increasingly causing conflict for congregations and denominations alike, is how to deal with the Emerging Church. The Emerging Church is the collection of thoughts and conversations about how the church needs to change in order to reach the postmodern segment of our culture. These changes are in some ways radical and revolutionary for the church standing on the threshold of the future.
As with any change there are those who lead the way through experimentation, reflection and provocation. There are others who will come along more slowly, and still others who will never embrace it. This is not a new situation. This paper will seek to elicit from scripture, examples from which we can see similar changes facing the Christian church today. Through reflection I hope to outline important keys to understanding the Emerging Church.
I believe there is a fifty year period of turbulent emergence that can serve as a biblical backdrop from which we can draw conclusions. This period began immediately prior to Jesus’ birth, and continued passed His death. In this period three emergences occurred, and at each time those who were trying to honor God found themselves on divided sides of the issue. They are listed as follows: 1.) Emergence of the Kingdom, 2.) Emergence of Pentecost, and 3.) Emergence of the Gentile Church.
EMERGENCE OF THE KINGDOM
An indicative point of the Emerging Church is an Incarnational theology. It is a return of sorts to seeing the church as the representative body of Christ on earth; the fulfillment of God’s presence on earth. A look at each of the cited emergences will require an examination of them for similarities with today’s church.
Was there an incarnational element in the emergences of the Kingdom of God? Absolutely! Jesus Christ was the incarnation of the Kingdom. He said as much in Mark 1:15, “The time has come,…The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news.”
The revelation of Christ as Messiah was shocking to the religious leadership of His day. Jesus claimed divinity[1], the ability to heal disease and forgive sin[2], and to be the fulfillment of the prophets[3]. Yet He did not fit the mold that the Pharisees had expected. Jesus claimed to be one with the Father, but they had been trained in the law to believe that their God was one[4] not multiple persons (i.e. Father and Son). The Messiah according to the prophets, especially the exilic prophets, spoke of the Lord coming in judgment to distribute the power of God upon those who oppressed Israel[5], and would usher in a new Temple and Jerusalem[6]. They were looking for a military leader. Jesus, however, seemed to judge the Pharisees far more than the Romans. He did not fit their preconceived ideas. Jesus told parables of the kingdom of heaven[7] and when He spoke, the stories were not understandable to those who listened. The parable of the Sower[8], for instance, has been analogized often in our current context, but within the original context Jesus is speaking to an all Jewish audience, and says that the Kingdom will be sown amongst Jews, and some get into the Kingdom and some don’t. This was very different from their perceptions of what the Kingdom coming to earth would look like.
The purpose of this emergence, of course, was the fulfillment of God’s promise. Through Abraham the whole earth would be blessed[9]. But though His methods regarding the law, and the prophets were counter to what was being looked for, it was the fulfillment God had in mind.[10]
The Disciples embraced this emergence while the Pharisees led the Jews to reject it. The most interesting part to me is that the disciples accepted it without really understanding. They still had questions about the parables and struggled to comprehend what Jesus was teaching them. I think in our current society this creates a major rub. Everyone wants answers in modernity. We want answers defining Postmodernity, and its effect on Christianity. We want answers on Ecclesiology, and how the Emerging Churches will affect the church as we know it. An initial key to understanding emergence is that it always raises more questions than answers initially.
Even when Jesus was leading the disciples through the institution of the New Covenant, replacing the covenant with Abraham -- the triumphal entry, the Passion Week events, the last supper, His death and resurrection -- they still didn’t know the answers. They asked, “Lord, are You at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?”[11] They knew that something new was emerging, but they still struggled to understand.
EMERGENCE OF PENTECOST
The questions that the disciples asked themselves for years must have surfaced again in their minds as Jesus told them that they would receive power from the Holy Spirit (another person of the Godhead), and that they would be witnesses starting in Jerusalem and moving out to all of the world. This was again different from the understanding of the prophets. They wrote about the Messiah ushering all nations to come to Jerusalem not sending them out.[12] Then to complicate matters, Jesus ascends back to heaven.[13]
The only thing the disciples had to hold onto in this next emergence was the command to wait in Jerusalem. Within ten days the next emergence began. Acts 2 records for us the events of the day of Pentecost. The emergence of Pentecost was another unexpected and unknown emergence. Just fifty days after Christ’s death, while there was probably still political heat surrounding the followers of Christ, they are filled with the Holy Spirit. There is the sound of a rushing wind, cloven tongue of fire rest on each of their heads, and they began speaking in tongues. This was so apparent that people in the street heard them.[14]
Pentecost marked the emergence of the church. The incarnational element was experienced by those who were filled with the Holy Spirit. The response is seen in Acts 2:41-47,
Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day. They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship to the breaking of bread and to prayer. Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and good, they gave to anyone as he had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.
The purpose of this emergence is clear in the launch of the church. The church is born and functioning, yet still struggles with its identity. Are these Messianic Jews Christians or still Jews? Do they live under the New Covenant or does some of the Old Covenant still exist for them to live under?
The methodologies of those who emerged were again in conflict. Many of the apostles stayed right in Jerusalem, only to be scattered later thought persecution. Yet Christ told them to go into all the world.[15]
One apostle did leave Jerusalem. Peter had a vision from God and an invitation to Caesarea, and he went.[16] This is where the methodology created the problems in this new Jewish sect. Peter’s vision was of a sheet containing foods that were considered unclean under Jewish law.
The whole idea of extending the gospel to the gentiles was foreign to the new church. It was further revealing God’s plan. The evidence came when Cornelius not only received Christ, but also received the baptism in the Holy Spirit with the same evidence that the Jewish church had received, that is speaking in tongues. The apostles weren’t ready for this, and Peter had to defend his actions, because his methods were far removed from the norm.
I think an important key is found here. The methods of Peter were done out of obedience to what God had told him to do. In the emerging church today I feel that nothing less that this model should be accepted. If God shows a ministry a specific call of vision to accomplish His mission, then by all means, they should pursue it. Trying to do something just for the sake of making something emerge will eventually fail anyway.
EMERGENCE OF PAUL AND WORLD MISSION
Following shortly after Peter’s experience with Cornelius the church experienced another emergence. Paul was converted to Christianity and began ministry under the reluctant permission of the other apostles. He made his ministry specifically incarnational by going to the areas of the Roman Empire that had not heard about Christ, and he presented the gospel to them. He became a leader in incarnational methodology stating, “I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessing.”[17]
His methodology was particularly suspect to the apostles in Jerusalem. The fact that Paul’s methods didn’t require the same acts of consecration as were necessary under the law of the Old Covenant was reprehensible. Paul stood up to them, recalcitrant, demanding that they not impose unnecessary law on gentile believers.
It was not necessary to first convert to Judaism in order to convert to Christianity. The major issue was circumcision. But Paul made his stand saying, “There is not Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.”[18]
His purpose was clear, to take the gospel to the world. The missions emphasis in the church today are attributable to Paul who began going to share the gospel wherever he could. And this is the key that most emphasizes the emerging church of today. It is pastors and apostles wanting to further the gospel, to share in its blessing that compels them to venture out of the accepted and normal areas of the church. It drives them to engage their culture with missional integrity.
CONCLUSION
Emerging issues in the church are not anything new. It has been a common part of the church’s history. Persecution, the Gnostic problem, Constantinianism, the Reformation, 20th century Pentecost, and now the postmodern dilemma are all emergences that the church has faced. In every situation there has been a parting of the church. There is always a tension between those holding onto the way it was and those who are shaping what it will be.
The important thing about emergence is that it will always face the church until the return of Christ. In the mean time we’re obligated to deal with each other in the love of Christ as we pursue the mission of the church. We must understand emergence will never be neat. It’s always messy and challenging to sort out. We must discern whether the methods emerging are an act of obedience, or just trendy actions driven by selfish ambitions. The entire church must remain focused on the mission. We must remember that the mission should drive our motivation. We must not allow tradition and comfort to hold us back from a missional pursuit. The Emerging Church is a church trying to find their way to accomplishing the mission.
[1] John 8:58
[2] Luke 5:20; 7:48
[3] Matthew 5:17; Luke 4:18-20; Is. 6:9-10
[4] Deuteronomy 6:4
[5] Micah 5:4-5
[6] Zechariah 6:12
[7] Matthew 13:31-52; 20:1-2
[8] Matthew 13:3-9
[9] Genesis 22:18
[10] Isaiah 6:9-13
[11] Acts 1:6
[12] Zechariah 14:14
[13] Acts 1:9
[14] Acts 2:1-8
[15] Matt 28:19
[16] Acts 10
[17] 1 Cor. 9:22b-23
[18] Col. 3:11
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
First Small Group Meeting
Last night we hosted our first small group meeting. I was thankful for everyone there. I really felt like God was a part of our conversation last night. Though it wasn't a typical small group, it was very meaningful. Almost everyone was part of the conversation in one way or another, and I think that the collection of ideas is important as we form this church. We, of course, are the church, so what will that look like then? Who has God created us to be?
I was really excited by the questions and grappling that went on. Thanks to all who were there.
Ben
I was really excited by the questions and grappling that went on. Thanks to all who were there.
Ben
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)