Taking a break from the break. I am on a so-called retreat with other ministers, which is more and more of a conference and not a retreat but that is a post for another day---before I get into the new Paul perspective and Crossan insights for church planting, another diversion.
I have brought with me the two latest books by the folks that brought us that great work The Shaping of Things To Come: Innovation and Mission in the 21st century church, Alan Hirsch and Michael Frost. They have separately recently written more indepth and closer examination of the points they laid out in the earlier work about the move from attractional and extractional church to incarnational mission church. Hirsch's is called The Forgotten Ways, and Frost's is Exiles: mission in a post christian culture (hope I got that right). Google them. Go to amazon and find them. Get them. Two new contributions that will give you ways of talking and presenting this foundational move to other folks.
I have also brought two books just barely got into but that are good too and hold lessons. I will explore these further coming up: Wright's book A short history of progress, and Burke and Taylor's book A Heretic's Guide to Eternity. Check them out too. Crossan recommended Wright's work.
More soon if this next round of snow everyone is getting back home in Oklahoma doesnt shut us off and down again.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Growing Church Lessons from Rodney Stark's Work
Okay, Sociologist of Religion Professor and best selling author Rodney Stark (The Rise of Christianity, One True God, For the Glory of God, The Victory of Reason, Cities of God, The Churching of America, 1776-2005) may at times be hard to take for religious progressives--especially process theologians. But I love his work and approach, if often not his delivery, especially as his work progresses it seems to take on a beleaugered, me against the world of academia spirit. Theologians and biblical scholars may find things to wince at from time to time (I do), but when he sticks to sociology and the lens of market forces applied to religious committment, he strikes me as dead-on. And his look at the world of the early church movement is particularly helpful for anyone planting churches in this century.
1. First, a general comment. In the Churching of America, he shows how America went not from a very church-going world in the colonial era to a non-church-going world today, but the reverse; what happened was that the main churches of the colonial era, namely congregationalism, and other "mainline" have shown a steady decline of market share throughout the history of the U.S., but "newer" churches and sects have more than made up for that decline. Now, put this up next to Barna's research that shows an ever-growing gulf between Christian church connection and attendance and especially committment and our U.S. society today. Are Stark and Barna mutually exclusive? No. Stark is looking with a broad brush stroke, and Barna is increasingly looking at how there is a difference between people who say they go to church, who go to church, who are committed to their faith, and eventually are dedicated to their faith, and he is interested in drawing distinctions between born-again evangelicals and other evangelicals for example. So yes more people in the market share are expressing a "connection" to church than were doing so in the colonial era and afterwards (Stark); but yes, ala Barna, that means less and less these days. And it is clear that the colonial era and its aftermath was at least a dominant church culture per se, compared to the dominance of secular and competitive choice culture today.
But for planters and those interested in growing their churches, Stark's works point to these factors.
2.
You have to have a focus that provides "here and now" rewards, of community, of belief, that cannot be obtained elsewhere. This is not to dismiss the "otherworldliness of focus on a life hereafter" for in Rise of Christianity he shows how that core belief sustained the early followers of Jesus, but it was enacted in the here and now of caring for one another. So how do you focus on forming relationships that will be like fictive families, places of healing and mission?
3.
Those that grow have a focused theological exclusiveness. Monotheism grows; polytheism won't. The more pluralism there is within a plant the more difficulty there will be in obtaining the committment needed. There seems to be a reverse dynamic at work. Stark shows how a church needs a high-tension with the surrounding culture in order to grow, but not too high tension that makes it too hard and turns people away (why else would people come and expend their personal capital if they could easily get same thing elsewhere?); but if there is internal high-tension it leads to watering down the focus and mission in order to accomodate everyone. Also, high demands on membership, coupled with great rewards, will equal growth. Question: how are people being rewarded, what are they being offered, for their transaction of capital and committment? If they are able to connect with an active God who will be on their side in times of need they are more likely to commit to the church of that God than with a God who is not active in lives and the world (remember what I said about the process theologians and church?). I think you can turn this into a positive but you have to acknowledge it exists.
About high tension with surrounding culture; here is one place Stark missteps. He says that mainline theologies, ala new understandings of doctrines, show a low tension with surrounding culture, and those that keep to the old doctrinal ways in the midst of the changing culture result in having high-tension churches. But at least in the minds of many, even in highly unchurched areas, and certainly in places where evangelical churches have been rising in stature in the past decades, the culture equates Christianity with the old doctrine and dogma; that's why the post-evangelicals and emergents are finding success as they respond in a different way, especially among the young. So to be high-tension with one's surrounding community may in fact be to hold to the new understandings of theological questions, and it is this progressive tension with a conservative culture that can create high committment. Now, is there something inherent in progressive theology that prevents it from engendering committment--that is, in short, if you do away with hell is there any reason for people to expend their religious capital? especially if you also do away with heaven?--that is a better question. In the short run, I think the answer is unfortunately yes. Can we get people to re-see hell in a new light, very much true in a here-and-now way, as a motivator? The rise of twelve step groups point to the possibility, but then we would have to see our mission in something of a similar healing fashion that would break through the walls of our healthy-mindedness.
4.
The biggie: churches grow by forming and using social networks, extended fields of family and friends. Know these, track these, connect with these.
5.
Show discontinuity and continuity with their religious background and surrounding churches. How does the church plant offer something different but not too different?
6.
You can grow organically, exponentially. 3.4 percent annual took the early Christians from marginal to dominant status over 300 years. Help people have a 300 year focus; our three and five year strategic plans just build in anxiety and short-sightedness and do more harm than good.
7.
Emotionalism over rationalism.
8.
Importance of focusing on urban areas, places of great stress and great change.
9.
Are there receptive groups waiting for your plant and what you have to offer? What has gone before? In Cities of God, he talks about how both Judaism's strands and various Pagan strands left a receptive culture for the message of the early church.
10.
Diversified leaders are crucial. Latest work shows how Paul by himself wasn't that influential; he reveals a lens on the work of so many others. Also being multicultural, including women as leaders. Broader look: who has been cast out by your culture and area, and how can your plant community offer them ministry and leadership opportunities? as Paul and early leaders did with women and others.
11. Stark talks about how rise of Christian communities came about through connecting with people who weren't the poorest, but who had standing and some wealth, and who could put their resources to use and connect with the ones without power in the society. See Neil Cole for how church plants thrive most in poorest, hardest areas where it is very visible who is desperate for life change--find ways to connect those with health and wealth with those who don't. Plants that focus on one or the other may limit themselves.
12
People who have lots of religous capital are less likely to be drawn to a new plant or movement than those with little religious capital. So focus on those de-churched, unchurched. Even moreso than I am thinking of the boomer seeker who may actually have his or her religous capital bound up in their very seeking self.
13
Stark talks about the importance of the "port cities" and the highly Hellenized cities as places where growth happened the most. What is our corrolary today? Where are the portals? The web? the fall through the crack places of a city? The coffeehouses? The apartment complexes? You can't go everywhere; you have to pick where you focus planting efforts. Where are the places of spiritual weakness that will offer an opening to your spiritual strength?
14
Focus on the family. Recent studies have show that birth rate factors are key in which religious communities grow and have more market share and which ones don't; mainlines don't have big families; others do. There is even focus on having bigger families in more conservative evangelical families and in the newer movements within those worlds--home school, home church, home business, etc. Maybe progressive families won't be able to look at having bigger families, through biological means, concerned about population growth and quality of life issues, but the issues of sacrifice are key here. What are we willing to commit to in terms beyond our own individualism? Adoption? Building bigger fictive families and more intentional connections with others? Even more home-religious schooling or families connecting beyond sending kids to one hour a week at "church"? Even focusing on the health of families. making this key to the being of the church. And with recent studies out from the Hartford Institute, you might narrow it down by putting a more concentrated effort into focusing on men and their spiritual needs and connecting with them. They say the more men are involved in a church, the more it grows. I think that is because men then provide a full family link, which brings more health into the system, than with the church being home to a split family, with only part of the family being involved. Committment would then go up, and so would growth, as well as a pool of resource and additional field of family and friends.
I would urge all folks interested in growth to be familiar with Stark's works. Unpleasant truths sometimes. And I think Martin Marty is right (Stark quotes him in his latest book Cities of God as opposing him on these grounds) that Stark's work is more geared to usefulness than to truth, but then he is a sociologist and not a theologian or biblical scholar or historian for that matter, though his work helps shed light in all these areas. I don't have to agree with the kind of image of God he shows leads to church growth to understand that what he has shown is valid; it just shows the work ahead to be done.
1. First, a general comment. In the Churching of America, he shows how America went not from a very church-going world in the colonial era to a non-church-going world today, but the reverse; what happened was that the main churches of the colonial era, namely congregationalism, and other "mainline" have shown a steady decline of market share throughout the history of the U.S., but "newer" churches and sects have more than made up for that decline. Now, put this up next to Barna's research that shows an ever-growing gulf between Christian church connection and attendance and especially committment and our U.S. society today. Are Stark and Barna mutually exclusive? No. Stark is looking with a broad brush stroke, and Barna is increasingly looking at how there is a difference between people who say they go to church, who go to church, who are committed to their faith, and eventually are dedicated to their faith, and he is interested in drawing distinctions between born-again evangelicals and other evangelicals for example. So yes more people in the market share are expressing a "connection" to church than were doing so in the colonial era and afterwards (Stark); but yes, ala Barna, that means less and less these days. And it is clear that the colonial era and its aftermath was at least a dominant church culture per se, compared to the dominance of secular and competitive choice culture today.
But for planters and those interested in growing their churches, Stark's works point to these factors.
2.
You have to have a focus that provides "here and now" rewards, of community, of belief, that cannot be obtained elsewhere. This is not to dismiss the "otherworldliness of focus on a life hereafter" for in Rise of Christianity he shows how that core belief sustained the early followers of Jesus, but it was enacted in the here and now of caring for one another. So how do you focus on forming relationships that will be like fictive families, places of healing and mission?
3.
Those that grow have a focused theological exclusiveness. Monotheism grows; polytheism won't. The more pluralism there is within a plant the more difficulty there will be in obtaining the committment needed. There seems to be a reverse dynamic at work. Stark shows how a church needs a high-tension with the surrounding culture in order to grow, but not too high tension that makes it too hard and turns people away (why else would people come and expend their personal capital if they could easily get same thing elsewhere?); but if there is internal high-tension it leads to watering down the focus and mission in order to accomodate everyone. Also, high demands on membership, coupled with great rewards, will equal growth. Question: how are people being rewarded, what are they being offered, for their transaction of capital and committment? If they are able to connect with an active God who will be on their side in times of need they are more likely to commit to the church of that God than with a God who is not active in lives and the world (remember what I said about the process theologians and church?). I think you can turn this into a positive but you have to acknowledge it exists.
About high tension with surrounding culture; here is one place Stark missteps. He says that mainline theologies, ala new understandings of doctrines, show a low tension with surrounding culture, and those that keep to the old doctrinal ways in the midst of the changing culture result in having high-tension churches. But at least in the minds of many, even in highly unchurched areas, and certainly in places where evangelical churches have been rising in stature in the past decades, the culture equates Christianity with the old doctrine and dogma; that's why the post-evangelicals and emergents are finding success as they respond in a different way, especially among the young. So to be high-tension with one's surrounding community may in fact be to hold to the new understandings of theological questions, and it is this progressive tension with a conservative culture that can create high committment. Now, is there something inherent in progressive theology that prevents it from engendering committment--that is, in short, if you do away with hell is there any reason for people to expend their religious capital? especially if you also do away with heaven?--that is a better question. In the short run, I think the answer is unfortunately yes. Can we get people to re-see hell in a new light, very much true in a here-and-now way, as a motivator? The rise of twelve step groups point to the possibility, but then we would have to see our mission in something of a similar healing fashion that would break through the walls of our healthy-mindedness.
4.
The biggie: churches grow by forming and using social networks, extended fields of family and friends. Know these, track these, connect with these.
5.
Show discontinuity and continuity with their religious background and surrounding churches. How does the church plant offer something different but not too different?
6.
You can grow organically, exponentially. 3.4 percent annual took the early Christians from marginal to dominant status over 300 years. Help people have a 300 year focus; our three and five year strategic plans just build in anxiety and short-sightedness and do more harm than good.
7.
Emotionalism over rationalism.
8.
Importance of focusing on urban areas, places of great stress and great change.
9.
Are there receptive groups waiting for your plant and what you have to offer? What has gone before? In Cities of God, he talks about how both Judaism's strands and various Pagan strands left a receptive culture for the message of the early church.
10.
Diversified leaders are crucial. Latest work shows how Paul by himself wasn't that influential; he reveals a lens on the work of so many others. Also being multicultural, including women as leaders. Broader look: who has been cast out by your culture and area, and how can your plant community offer them ministry and leadership opportunities? as Paul and early leaders did with women and others.
11. Stark talks about how rise of Christian communities came about through connecting with people who weren't the poorest, but who had standing and some wealth, and who could put their resources to use and connect with the ones without power in the society. See Neil Cole for how church plants thrive most in poorest, hardest areas where it is very visible who is desperate for life change--find ways to connect those with health and wealth with those who don't. Plants that focus on one or the other may limit themselves.
12
People who have lots of religous capital are less likely to be drawn to a new plant or movement than those with little religious capital. So focus on those de-churched, unchurched. Even moreso than I am thinking of the boomer seeker who may actually have his or her religous capital bound up in their very seeking self.
13
Stark talks about the importance of the "port cities" and the highly Hellenized cities as places where growth happened the most. What is our corrolary today? Where are the portals? The web? the fall through the crack places of a city? The coffeehouses? The apartment complexes? You can't go everywhere; you have to pick where you focus planting efforts. Where are the places of spiritual weakness that will offer an opening to your spiritual strength?
14
Focus on the family. Recent studies have show that birth rate factors are key in which religious communities grow and have more market share and which ones don't; mainlines don't have big families; others do. There is even focus on having bigger families in more conservative evangelical families and in the newer movements within those worlds--home school, home church, home business, etc. Maybe progressive families won't be able to look at having bigger families, through biological means, concerned about population growth and quality of life issues, but the issues of sacrifice are key here. What are we willing to commit to in terms beyond our own individualism? Adoption? Building bigger fictive families and more intentional connections with others? Even more home-religious schooling or families connecting beyond sending kids to one hour a week at "church"? Even focusing on the health of families. making this key to the being of the church. And with recent studies out from the Hartford Institute, you might narrow it down by putting a more concentrated effort into focusing on men and their spiritual needs and connecting with them. They say the more men are involved in a church, the more it grows. I think that is because men then provide a full family link, which brings more health into the system, than with the church being home to a split family, with only part of the family being involved. Committment would then go up, and so would growth, as well as a pool of resource and additional field of family and friends.
I would urge all folks interested in growth to be familiar with Stark's works. Unpleasant truths sometimes. And I think Martin Marty is right (Stark quotes him in his latest book Cities of God as opposing him on these grounds) that Stark's work is more geared to usefulness than to truth, but then he is a sociologist and not a theologian or biblical scholar or historian for that matter, though his work helps shed light in all these areas. I don't have to agree with the kind of image of God he shows leads to church growth to understand that what he has shown is valid; it just shows the work ahead to be done.
Monday, January 22, 2007
Update on The Living Room Church "Re-Incarnation"
A momentary break to bring you some news about our recent moving away from the "attractional" church plant model to a "missional/incarnational" model.
Faith Wherever Life Happens
The Introduction:
Behold, I am doing a new thing! Now it springs up; do you not perceive it? I am making a way in the desert and streams in the wasteland.
Isaiah 43:19
“The missional church is incarnational, not attractional…By incarnational we mean it does not create sanctified spaces into which unbelievers must come to encounter the gospel. Rather, the missional church disassembles itself and steps into the cracks and crevices of a society in order to be Christ to those who don’t yet know him.”
Michael Frost and Alan Hirsch, “The Shape of Things To Come: Innovation and Mission For the 21st Century Church”
“Here is the simple and abbreviated historical shorthand for all that follows, for why we are doing what we are doing now through what we call The Living Room Church. Before the year 325 c.e., the free movement or “church” of Jesus-followers grew and thrived by organically living in and among and between and at times against the intersecting and overlapping “worlds” of ancient Greek values, Roman Empire values, and the traditions of “Israel.” This was in keeping with Jesus’ “contagious healing spirit” of breaking boundaries set up by the world to keep people apart from one another and God.
“Then in 325 with the Empire and Church intertwining, the official connection began between “Church” and “World” which grew over the centuries until the “world’ became a subset or sphere of the “Church.” This started the “churched culture” which has lasted until recently. With the Printing Press Revolution and Protestant Reformation in the 1500s and the Age of Enlightenment and Modernity, the separation process began and continued to grow between the spheres of churches, one from another, between them and the World, and also between individuals and all their groups.
“By the time of the mid-to-late 20th century, the sphere of the separate church had receded, but churches continue to operate as they had when they were the dominant sphere, as a primary place for “believers” to congregate and only then, after that fact, to “go out to change the world.” People were seen as lost individuals caught between the two spheres, to be “battled over” and ‘won over’ with the right message or fear tactics.
“But in the 21st century, with the continuing ebb of church influence in society, especially in an era of mega-churches, it has become clear to many that the “church-as-usual” mission, where the world is still seen as “other” and the goal of changing it is to build up the church organization as big as possible, no longer is an effective carrier of the original organic contagious spirit of Jesus. So now the ancient-future model, a 180 degree different, inverted model of the Empire-Church, is to once again plant the seeds of the “church” within the pluralistic world itself, to grow the soul of the world, and in doing so the church itself is born anew.”Rev. Ron Robinson, The Living Room Church
The Vision
As one of the final steps in the creation of our new missional church-planting church (the final step is to replicate ourselves), we are moving into a new space that will be dedicated primarily for the wider community’s use. This will enable us to incarnate ourselves in service and partnership to others first, to be guests within our own hosting space, and only then to find our sacred worshipping space within space given to others.
We are with your help creating a place and meeting the needs of an underserved area of the northern Tulsa region. We will create:
A public library of books, tapes, and movies
An internet café providing computers and wireless connections to those many in our area who are without their own as well as the transportation means to get to existing access; a TV and game tables for socializing
A sustainability center of a free giveaway swap center for reusing items, clothes, tools, etc.
A community recycling center
A community agency and community organizations clearinghouse of information and resources
An art gallery
A free musical venue for concerts
A place for community support groups to meet, for public presentations and speakers in an area accessible and in the vicinity of those in need. A way for agencies to come to the people they serve.
A children’s reading and playing corner
An outdoor garden meditation and reading and eating space
A place for classes such as yoga; exercize area
A restored place of beauty and new life in a decaying area
A place for dreams not yet dreamed
The Details of the Vision: We are moving into 4,000 square feet at 6514 N. Peoria as the largest central use in the Highlander Center. Our neighbors will be the U.S. Post Office and a Laundramat. We will be across from a bank. We will be close to the Osage bike and walking Trail. We are within walking distance of north Tulsa and Turley and are on a main highway connecting Tulsa with Sperry and Skiatook. We will continue to house and rent to the national offices of the Unitarian Universalist Christian Fellowship. We will continue to gather for spiritual meetings on Sunday and Wednesday evenings and at other times as often as possible using the new multi-purpose space. The Living Room Church information tables will be one of the community groups with tables in the new space.
The Opportunity and Wish List
We hope you and those you serve and those you know will find this an important and needed mission in our world, and for the church itself, and an opportunity for people to make a big difference in lives. Please pass on to others.
We are seeking:
Prayers
Apostles who will spread the word of what we are doing
Direct Financial Donations from individuals and churches and groups
A one-time plate collection for us during your worship offering, or other type of donation
Donations of:
Computers, wireless remotes, equipment, expertise
Tables—long or round
Chairs
Living Room furniture
Office furniture
Coffeemakers, expresso makers
Shelving
Books and periodicals and movies and music for all ages for the library
Connect us with Musicians for concerts, artists, craftspeople
Portable Electric Sign and/or help with New Signage on the building for this community center
Volunteer Workers to have a party and help us with set up of the new space
Regular volunteers who would like to serve a few hours a week or month to be hosts.
Items of All Kinds for our Giveaway Center, including business and professional clothes for a kind of “Dress For Success” style center.
Artwork
Gardeners
Dreamers with New and More Ideas
Contact
Make checks payable to The Living Room Church, 6514 N. Peoria Ave, Turley, OK 74126. For more information, contact Rev. Ron Robinson, 918-691-3223.
Faith Wherever Life Happens
The Introduction:
Behold, I am doing a new thing! Now it springs up; do you not perceive it? I am making a way in the desert and streams in the wasteland.
Isaiah 43:19
“The missional church is incarnational, not attractional…By incarnational we mean it does not create sanctified spaces into which unbelievers must come to encounter the gospel. Rather, the missional church disassembles itself and steps into the cracks and crevices of a society in order to be Christ to those who don’t yet know him.”
Michael Frost and Alan Hirsch, “The Shape of Things To Come: Innovation and Mission For the 21st Century Church”
“Here is the simple and abbreviated historical shorthand for all that follows, for why we are doing what we are doing now through what we call The Living Room Church. Before the year 325 c.e., the free movement or “church” of Jesus-followers grew and thrived by organically living in and among and between and at times against the intersecting and overlapping “worlds” of ancient Greek values, Roman Empire values, and the traditions of “Israel.” This was in keeping with Jesus’ “contagious healing spirit” of breaking boundaries set up by the world to keep people apart from one another and God.
“Then in 325 with the Empire and Church intertwining, the official connection began between “Church” and “World” which grew over the centuries until the “world’ became a subset or sphere of the “Church.” This started the “churched culture” which has lasted until recently. With the Printing Press Revolution and Protestant Reformation in the 1500s and the Age of Enlightenment and Modernity, the separation process began and continued to grow between the spheres of churches, one from another, between them and the World, and also between individuals and all their groups.
“By the time of the mid-to-late 20th century, the sphere of the separate church had receded, but churches continue to operate as they had when they were the dominant sphere, as a primary place for “believers” to congregate and only then, after that fact, to “go out to change the world.” People were seen as lost individuals caught between the two spheres, to be “battled over” and ‘won over’ with the right message or fear tactics.
“But in the 21st century, with the continuing ebb of church influence in society, especially in an era of mega-churches, it has become clear to many that the “church-as-usual” mission, where the world is still seen as “other” and the goal of changing it is to build up the church organization as big as possible, no longer is an effective carrier of the original organic contagious spirit of Jesus. So now the ancient-future model, a 180 degree different, inverted model of the Empire-Church, is to once again plant the seeds of the “church” within the pluralistic world itself, to grow the soul of the world, and in doing so the church itself is born anew.”Rev. Ron Robinson, The Living Room Church
The Vision
As one of the final steps in the creation of our new missional church-planting church (the final step is to replicate ourselves), we are moving into a new space that will be dedicated primarily for the wider community’s use. This will enable us to incarnate ourselves in service and partnership to others first, to be guests within our own hosting space, and only then to find our sacred worshipping space within space given to others.
We are with your help creating a place and meeting the needs of an underserved area of the northern Tulsa region. We will create:
A public library of books, tapes, and movies
An internet café providing computers and wireless connections to those many in our area who are without their own as well as the transportation means to get to existing access; a TV and game tables for socializing
A sustainability center of a free giveaway swap center for reusing items, clothes, tools, etc.
A community recycling center
A community agency and community organizations clearinghouse of information and resources
An art gallery
A free musical venue for concerts
A place for community support groups to meet, for public presentations and speakers in an area accessible and in the vicinity of those in need. A way for agencies to come to the people they serve.
A children’s reading and playing corner
An outdoor garden meditation and reading and eating space
A place for classes such as yoga; exercize area
A restored place of beauty and new life in a decaying area
A place for dreams not yet dreamed
The Details of the Vision: We are moving into 4,000 square feet at 6514 N. Peoria as the largest central use in the Highlander Center. Our neighbors will be the U.S. Post Office and a Laundramat. We will be across from a bank. We will be close to the Osage bike and walking Trail. We are within walking distance of north Tulsa and Turley and are on a main highway connecting Tulsa with Sperry and Skiatook. We will continue to house and rent to the national offices of the Unitarian Universalist Christian Fellowship. We will continue to gather for spiritual meetings on Sunday and Wednesday evenings and at other times as often as possible using the new multi-purpose space. The Living Room Church information tables will be one of the community groups with tables in the new space.
The Opportunity and Wish List
We hope you and those you serve and those you know will find this an important and needed mission in our world, and for the church itself, and an opportunity for people to make a big difference in lives. Please pass on to others.
We are seeking:
Prayers
Apostles who will spread the word of what we are doing
Direct Financial Donations from individuals and churches and groups
A one-time plate collection for us during your worship offering, or other type of donation
Donations of:
Computers, wireless remotes, equipment, expertise
Tables—long or round
Chairs
Living Room furniture
Office furniture
Coffeemakers, expresso makers
Shelving
Books and periodicals and movies and music for all ages for the library
Connect us with Musicians for concerts, artists, craftspeople
Portable Electric Sign and/or help with New Signage on the building for this community center
Volunteer Workers to have a party and help us with set up of the new space
Regular volunteers who would like to serve a few hours a week or month to be hosts.
Items of All Kinds for our Giveaway Center, including business and professional clothes for a kind of “Dress For Success” style center.
Artwork
Gardeners
Dreamers with New and More Ideas
Contact
Make checks payable to The Living Room Church, 6514 N. Peoria Ave, Turley, OK 74126. For more information, contact Rev. Ron Robinson, 918-691-3223.
Places to Start in 2007
Before I begin to post on church and...the recent work of John Dominic Crossan...and the New Paul Perspective...and the insights from Rodney Stark's recent work, I thought I would point to some of the pivotal posts on the blog from the previous months. A good place to start as we begin to look at what is coming in 2007.
If I could point you to the most important blog posts here it would be these. If you want to read them in chronological order go to bottom and work your way up:
http://progressivechurchplanting.blogspot.com/2006/11/tale-of-two-books-bass-whitesel.html
http://progressivechurchplanting.blogspot.com/2006/10/changing-scorecard-20-portals.html
http://progressivechurchplanting.blogspot.com/2006/09/more-on-shaping-of-things-to-come.html
http://progressivechurchplanting.blogspot.com/2006/08/shaping-of-things-to-come.html
http://progressivechurchplanting.blogspot.com/2006/08/are-you-revolutionary.html
http://progressivechurchplanting.blogspot.com/2006/07/more-thoughts-on-message-captivity-of.html
http://progressivechurchplanting.blogspot.com/2006/06/dozen-plant-and-growth-in-general.html
http://progressivechurchplanting.blogspot.com/2006/05/heresy-1-where-to-focus-re-visitors.html
If I could point you to the most important blog posts here it would be these. If you want to read them in chronological order go to bottom and work your way up:
http://progressivechurchplanting.blogspot.com/2006/11/tale-of-two-books-bass-whitesel.html
http://progressivechurchplanting.blogspot.com/2006/10/changing-scorecard-20-portals.html
http://progressivechurchplanting.blogspot.com/2006/09/more-on-shaping-of-things-to-come.html
http://progressivechurchplanting.blogspot.com/2006/08/shaping-of-things-to-come.html
http://progressivechurchplanting.blogspot.com/2006/08/are-you-revolutionary.html
http://progressivechurchplanting.blogspot.com/2006/07/more-thoughts-on-message-captivity-of.html
http://progressivechurchplanting.blogspot.com/2006/06/dozen-plant-and-growth-in-general.html
http://progressivechurchplanting.blogspot.com/2006/05/heresy-1-where-to-focus-re-visitors.html
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Giving Yourself A Christmas Gift?
Here are some recommendations and reprises from earlier posts. But first, four recent buys of mine to recommend, and of which I will have more to say soon I am sure. [And don't forget Christian Voices in Unitarian Universalism, Skinner House, 2006, edited by Kathleen Rolenz. Go to www.uua.org/skinner.
1. The new book to begin it all. Ed Stetzer's Planting Missional Churches: Planting a Church that's biblically sound and reaching people in culture (2006). This is the new place I would start for any church planting conversation and effort, replacing Aubrey Malphurs or Ralph Moore's. It is comprehensive, and so there is a lot left unsaid about each of the models, but he includes good places to go to get more depth on whether it is house church network or rapid large start or others. I liked this one much better than his previous one on planting churches in a postmodern age, which was too laden with theological/culturalese. It probably goes without saying I think he is wrong on what constitutes biblically soundness, but don't let that stop you. And don't pass this one up even if you aren't involved or interested in church plant; the principles are good for looking at what you will need to do and be within existing churches to keep up with all the new being planted around you anyway. So it applies to new ministries within existing churches.
A few nuggets:
Today's church planter should be 1. missional. 2. incarnational. 3. theological. 4. ecclesiological. 5. spiritual.
objections that hold people back from church planting:
1. large church mentality. The newer the church, not the bigger the church, the more effective it is at reaching unchurched, dechurched.
2. parish-church mind-set. have to get beyond geographical limitations and turf politeness. [Alert to my UU readers, though I know this is a mainline issue as well in some places].
In 1900, 28 churches for every 10,000 Americans. In 1950, 17 churches for same number. In 2000, dropped to 12 churches per, and in 2004, dropped again to 11 church per 10,000 Americans.
3. professional-church syndrome. Have to break out of church equals seminary trained pastor model, particularly as churches begin to multiple themselves.
4. rescue-the-dying syndrome. have to break out of addiction of rescuing the dying churches within movements before starting new ones. Look at how resources are allocated on national level.
5. already-reached myth. Or I would call it the "they will find us if they need us" mentality. Goes along with buying into the secular myth that faith communities aren't needed for the wholeness/salvation of the soul, can do it alone.
Check back for much more out of and about this new resource.
2. Future Church: ministry in a post-seeker age by Jim Wilson with foreword by Sally Morgenthaler (2004). It has a kind of Len Sweet feel to it but with a more conservative theological orientation, maybe Barna-light. Very story-oriented, which is good. Seven main connections based on a set of assumptions and questions for the church trying to meet the future now (also a good connection with Reggie McNeal's book The Present Future, also based on a question and response format, though there are more stories in this one by Wilson). Definitely good for those looking at how to keep connected to existing churches and move them through transformation to revolution. Here are the seven levers (ways you can look at your ministry setting):
Get Creative: CW says that people don't want to be "preached to" and told how to live. They prefeer to set their own rules for living and rely on the entertainment industry--cinemas, sporting events, and theaters--for their inspiration. What is the church's response?
Get Spiritual: CW says that one religion is as good as another. Christians are often viewed as mean-spirited, narrow-minded bigots. Gurus, mystics, and psychics are as legitimate as priests, rabbis, and minister's in today's supercharged environment. What is the church's response?
Get Radical: CW says that emerging generations lack real purpose and are drifting through life. They've become cynical, not really believing that anything can make society--or their souls--whole again. What is the church's response?
Get Real: CW says that current culture will not tolerate duplicity and will immediately dismiss anyone who says one thing and does another. They are suspicious of anything is slick, orchestrated, or too good to be true. What is the church's response?
Get Truthful: CW says that people no longer believe in absolute truth and are suspicious of experts, institutions, and anyone who makes exclusive claims. What is the church's response?
Get Multi: CW says that culture celebrates diversity and loathes intolerance. Emerging generations don't want to be pigeonholed or lumped into a group. What is the church's response?
Get Connected: CW says that people are isolated from one another and are destined to drift from one failed relationship to another. What is the church's response?
There's a "sermon series" or conversational topics for you. Need more progressives responding from our biblical basis to these same touchstones.
3. Jesus: Uncovering the Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a religious revolutionary, by Marcus Borg (2006). Get inspired by the Jesus Borg rightly points to, and then put Stetzer, Wilson, et al into practice. Here is a good updating, retelling of the progressive Christian encounter with Jesus and the Risen Christ as the spirit of Jesus in our lives and world today. Combines the best of his previous works (and you can see that he is incorporated the responses to the opposition of that work) into one "unifying vision for a critical time" as the blurb puts it. If you are already familiar with Borg's works, then it is still worthwhile for the epilogue on Jesus and American Christianity today. In it he connects his work with the emergent and emerging Christianity, and is in favor of the transformation of the church. Maybe it is beyond his purview or passion, but as he does a good job of extolling the importance of churches ("God can do without churches. But we can't.") I wish there was some nod not only to the theological transformation of the existing mainline churches but to the need for new progressive church plants to be better able to create in their initial DNA this kind vision of Jesus.
4. The Churching of America: 1776-2005, by Rodney Stark and Roger Finke (2006). I am a big Stark fan. If you want to read a thesis on why the congregationalists/Unitarians are so small compared to even others in the mainline, not to mention the 20th century evangelicals, and why the mainlines are succombing to this as well and the evangelicals might be on the verge of it, and the rise of Mormonism, et al as other new "upstarts" then this is the book. Develops his/their thesis of religious economy that he used on new religious movements. Great diagnosis of the reasons mergers and unifications and ecumenical enterprises in general (UU alert) don't live up to the expectations of their dreamers and founders. His thesis is that we have gotten more religious and spiritual involvement from colonial days, but our blinders and perferences for establishment churches of that era have kept us from being able to see this. [Barna might point out that church affiliation is a loose notion and doesn't equate with conviction and committment, and why we are still in an unchurched, dechurched era, but that is part of the fluid notion that might send evangelicals the same way as other dominant groups in the past; still a good conversation I would like to listen to is one between Stark and Barna; does anyone know if it has existed?]....The "less regulated" the religious economy of the culture is, the easier for new starts to take the field. [I wonder if you could apply this also to the "regulation" of a local church group, and one of the reasons why mainlines decline has been their committment to regulation and control, ala Easum and Bandy's work]....Interesting commentary here on the "audience economy" of the New Age movements, and why they don't think it signals a significant growth in the American religious landscape [wonder how it might also apply to churches and the post-denominational "dabbling" though?]. And finally they disagree that there has been a seismic shift from mainline decline to evangelical eruption; rather they see it as something happening gradually over a couple of hundred years, and media attention seemed to propel it in people's perception. The market share of the churches had been dwindling all along. And, just because once large groups are now small, doesn't necessarily mean they will be able to rise in market share again. They repeat their arguement from previous books that more than anything else it is putting a high cost on membership and applying strict boundaries is what propels a church. But that alone doesn't work either. Many will become so strict in such a way as to fail. As he wrote in One True God, they also include the role of theological belief in an active, exclusionary God in offering the rewards that drive allegiance. Opening up a place for experimental, innovative new churches is also key, and here mainlines have failed in the past. The path is to increase tension with the outside culture. [on this point more to come from me post-holiday crush].
And don't forget "The Shaping of Things To Come" by Frost and Hirsch, "Emerging Churches" by Gibbs and Bolger, "Organic Church" by Neil Cole and "Revolution" by George Barna. All of which have their own posts elsewhere in the blog. Blessings.
1. The new book to begin it all. Ed Stetzer's Planting Missional Churches: Planting a Church that's biblically sound and reaching people in culture (2006). This is the new place I would start for any church planting conversation and effort, replacing Aubrey Malphurs or Ralph Moore's. It is comprehensive, and so there is a lot left unsaid about each of the models, but he includes good places to go to get more depth on whether it is house church network or rapid large start or others. I liked this one much better than his previous one on planting churches in a postmodern age, which was too laden with theological/culturalese. It probably goes without saying I think he is wrong on what constitutes biblically soundness, but don't let that stop you. And don't pass this one up even if you aren't involved or interested in church plant; the principles are good for looking at what you will need to do and be within existing churches to keep up with all the new being planted around you anyway. So it applies to new ministries within existing churches.
A few nuggets:
Today's church planter should be 1. missional. 2. incarnational. 3. theological. 4. ecclesiological. 5. spiritual.
objections that hold people back from church planting:
1. large church mentality. The newer the church, not the bigger the church, the more effective it is at reaching unchurched, dechurched.
2. parish-church mind-set. have to get beyond geographical limitations and turf politeness. [Alert to my UU readers, though I know this is a mainline issue as well in some places].
In 1900, 28 churches for every 10,000 Americans. In 1950, 17 churches for same number. In 2000, dropped to 12 churches per, and in 2004, dropped again to 11 church per 10,000 Americans.
3. professional-church syndrome. Have to break out of church equals seminary trained pastor model, particularly as churches begin to multiple themselves.
4. rescue-the-dying syndrome. have to break out of addiction of rescuing the dying churches within movements before starting new ones. Look at how resources are allocated on national level.
5. already-reached myth. Or I would call it the "they will find us if they need us" mentality. Goes along with buying into the secular myth that faith communities aren't needed for the wholeness/salvation of the soul, can do it alone.
Check back for much more out of and about this new resource.
2. Future Church: ministry in a post-seeker age by Jim Wilson with foreword by Sally Morgenthaler (2004). It has a kind of Len Sweet feel to it but with a more conservative theological orientation, maybe Barna-light. Very story-oriented, which is good. Seven main connections based on a set of assumptions and questions for the church trying to meet the future now (also a good connection with Reggie McNeal's book The Present Future, also based on a question and response format, though there are more stories in this one by Wilson). Definitely good for those looking at how to keep connected to existing churches and move them through transformation to revolution. Here are the seven levers (ways you can look at your ministry setting):
Get Creative: CW says that people don't want to be "preached to" and told how to live. They prefeer to set their own rules for living and rely on the entertainment industry--cinemas, sporting events, and theaters--for their inspiration. What is the church's response?
Get Spiritual: CW says that one religion is as good as another. Christians are often viewed as mean-spirited, narrow-minded bigots. Gurus, mystics, and psychics are as legitimate as priests, rabbis, and minister's in today's supercharged environment. What is the church's response?
Get Radical: CW says that emerging generations lack real purpose and are drifting through life. They've become cynical, not really believing that anything can make society--or their souls--whole again. What is the church's response?
Get Real: CW says that current culture will not tolerate duplicity and will immediately dismiss anyone who says one thing and does another. They are suspicious of anything is slick, orchestrated, or too good to be true. What is the church's response?
Get Truthful: CW says that people no longer believe in absolute truth and are suspicious of experts, institutions, and anyone who makes exclusive claims. What is the church's response?
Get Multi: CW says that culture celebrates diversity and loathes intolerance. Emerging generations don't want to be pigeonholed or lumped into a group. What is the church's response?
Get Connected: CW says that people are isolated from one another and are destined to drift from one failed relationship to another. What is the church's response?
There's a "sermon series" or conversational topics for you. Need more progressives responding from our biblical basis to these same touchstones.
3. Jesus: Uncovering the Life, Teachings, and Relevance of a religious revolutionary, by Marcus Borg (2006). Get inspired by the Jesus Borg rightly points to, and then put Stetzer, Wilson, et al into practice. Here is a good updating, retelling of the progressive Christian encounter with Jesus and the Risen Christ as the spirit of Jesus in our lives and world today. Combines the best of his previous works (and you can see that he is incorporated the responses to the opposition of that work) into one "unifying vision for a critical time" as the blurb puts it. If you are already familiar with Borg's works, then it is still worthwhile for the epilogue on Jesus and American Christianity today. In it he connects his work with the emergent and emerging Christianity, and is in favor of the transformation of the church. Maybe it is beyond his purview or passion, but as he does a good job of extolling the importance of churches ("God can do without churches. But we can't.") I wish there was some nod not only to the theological transformation of the existing mainline churches but to the need for new progressive church plants to be better able to create in their initial DNA this kind vision of Jesus.
4. The Churching of America: 1776-2005, by Rodney Stark and Roger Finke (2006). I am a big Stark fan. If you want to read a thesis on why the congregationalists/Unitarians are so small compared to even others in the mainline, not to mention the 20th century evangelicals, and why the mainlines are succombing to this as well and the evangelicals might be on the verge of it, and the rise of Mormonism, et al as other new "upstarts" then this is the book. Develops his/their thesis of religious economy that he used on new religious movements. Great diagnosis of the reasons mergers and unifications and ecumenical enterprises in general (UU alert) don't live up to the expectations of their dreamers and founders. His thesis is that we have gotten more religious and spiritual involvement from colonial days, but our blinders and perferences for establishment churches of that era have kept us from being able to see this. [Barna might point out that church affiliation is a loose notion and doesn't equate with conviction and committment, and why we are still in an unchurched, dechurched era, but that is part of the fluid notion that might send evangelicals the same way as other dominant groups in the past; still a good conversation I would like to listen to is one between Stark and Barna; does anyone know if it has existed?]....The "less regulated" the religious economy of the culture is, the easier for new starts to take the field. [I wonder if you could apply this also to the "regulation" of a local church group, and one of the reasons why mainlines decline has been their committment to regulation and control, ala Easum and Bandy's work]....Interesting commentary here on the "audience economy" of the New Age movements, and why they don't think it signals a significant growth in the American religious landscape [wonder how it might also apply to churches and the post-denominational "dabbling" though?]. And finally they disagree that there has been a seismic shift from mainline decline to evangelical eruption; rather they see it as something happening gradually over a couple of hundred years, and media attention seemed to propel it in people's perception. The market share of the churches had been dwindling all along. And, just because once large groups are now small, doesn't necessarily mean they will be able to rise in market share again. They repeat their arguement from previous books that more than anything else it is putting a high cost on membership and applying strict boundaries is what propels a church. But that alone doesn't work either. Many will become so strict in such a way as to fail. As he wrote in One True God, they also include the role of theological belief in an active, exclusionary God in offering the rewards that drive allegiance. Opening up a place for experimental, innovative new churches is also key, and here mainlines have failed in the past. The path is to increase tension with the outside culture. [on this point more to come from me post-holiday crush].
And don't forget "The Shaping of Things To Come" by Frost and Hirsch, "Emerging Churches" by Gibbs and Bolger, "Organic Church" by Neil Cole and "Revolution" by George Barna. All of which have their own posts elsewhere in the blog. Blessings.
2006 American Religion in Review: Four Areas from Barna
Here is one synopsis of a religious surveyor and analyst's review of the year 2006 in American religion. By George Barna www.barna.org.
First, Barna identified some of the most prolific news stories of the year that involved religion:
1. the role of evangelicals in the mid-term elections,
2. Hollywood’s pursuit of the Christian audience,
3. scandals concerning priests and ministers,
4. the shooting of five Amish school children and their community’s response,
5. the internal politics of the Episcopal Church,
6. the controversy involving Muslims and the Pope.
Offhand, I pretty much agree with the list. But I would rate them in this order, not of newsworthiness by the way, but of lasting significance:
1. Hollywood--media always shapes meaning and leads to organizational embodiment
2. Episcopals--emblematic of widening rift in what it means to be Christian, new kind of Reformation
3. Evangelical shift--politics and religion will get murkier, not less so; the polarization into the Christian Right and the Secular Progressives, as so many wish to keep alive, will be history as the Center holds. Might throw in here news items surrounding Stem-Cell, also the spiritual dimensions of Immigration Debate, the emergence of Hilary and Obama and McCain as emblematic of Center on these issues.
4. Scandals--Haggard, et al. part of the shift toward decentralized celebrity-less spirituality.
5. Muslim and Pope--"Western Civilization" "Christian Europe" "Inter-religious engagement that is based on differences" in 100 years this could be seen as the most significant, and have boiled over in this flat world to the American scene.
6. Shooting and Response. Shootings will continue, but will the response of the Amish become a touchstone of response and lead to changes in understandings of justice?
Second, Barna's own 12 most significant findings of 2006 based on the year's research, in his order of what he deems most important. Details below.
1. Disparity between public claims and claims of regular church-goers, and perceptions by pastors
2. 75 percent of teenagers engage at least once in some form of "psychic or witchcraft" experience while only 30 percent of churches seem concerned enough to teach on it.
3. "Holiness" not a concern.
4. wide difference between what he calls "Christian Revolutionaries" (see his book called Revolution) who are dedicated to living out faith fully, and the "born-again" whose faith is mostly in profession.
5. Rise of house churches, though most (80 percent) in house church still have some connection to more formal church organization.
6. Very few are engaged in spiritual gifts discernment, and for those that do it is still seen as related to "volunteerism."
7. high rate of involvement in faith community in teen years drops off in the twenties.
8. post 9-11 faith rise dropped off five years later back to normal
9. disconnect between perceptions of parents about faith development of their children, and what children report.
10. only 1 out of 6 think spiritual faith maturity should be developed within context of a church community.
11. few Americans recognize names of top Christian book-sellers and pastors.
12. numbers of people claiming "born-again" continues to rise, as does bible study and small group involvement.
My own rearrangment of the order of importance of those 12 findings of his would be as follows:
My one is his number 10---loss of interest in church. Old news but all flows from it.
My two is his number 4---rise of "revolutionaries" becoming distinct different faith grouping
My three is his number 5--rise of house church
My four is his number 9--parental/children disconnect
My five is his number 1--difference in perception in pew and pulpit
My six is his number 6---no spiritual gifts discernment going on, really, anywhere
My seven is his number 2--not for the obvious spiritual warfare alert as he sees it, but as an indicator of the rise of fantasy as personal spiritual allegiance and practice
My eight is his number 12--indicating rise of importance in seeking intimacy and Story
My nine is his number 3--holiness dropping off the chart, probably for good reason (see Paul's admonition in Romans that God is for the unrighteous), but the loss of moral center, community values, and rise of uncontrolled behavior and addictions should be of more vital concern, especially to progressives.
My ten is his number 7--losing young adults to status quo faith communities
My eleven is his number 11--lack of recognition just shows secular/spiritual divide widening
My twelve is his number 8--post 9-11 illusions and disillusions.
(the order of these also shows a relationship between them to the general shift away from churched culture to dechurched and unchurched culture, to the rise of generational cultural differences, and cultural modernity's demise).
Here is Barna's elaboration on the findings and links to the surveys from this past year:
Although large majorities of the public claim to be “deeply spiritual” and say that their religious faith is “very important” in their life, only 15% of those who regularly attend a Christian church ranked their relationship with God as the top priority in their life. As alarming as that finding was, its significance was magnified by research showing that on average pastors believe that 70% of the adults in their congregation consider their relationship with God to be their highest priority in life.
For related information, see the January 10th Barna Update click here
Three out of every four teenagers have engaged in at least one type of psychic or witchcraft-related activity. Among the most common of those endeavors are using a Ouija board, reading books about witchcraft or Wicca, playing games involving sorcery or witchcraft, having a “professional” do a palm reading or having their fortune told. Conversely, during the past year fewer than three out of every ten churched teenagers had received any teaching from their church about elements of the supernatural.
For related information, see the January 23rd Barna Update click here
The notion of personal holiness has slipped out of the consciousness of the vast majority of Christians. While just 21% of adults consider themselves to be holy, by their own admission large numbers have no idea what “holiness” means and only one out of every three (35%) believe that God expects people to become holy.
For related information, see the Februrary 20th Barna Update click here
The growing movement of Christian Revolutionaries in the U.S. distinguished themselves from an already-select group of people – born again Christians – through their deeds, beliefs and self-views. Revolutionaries demonstrated substantially higher levels of community service, financial contributions, daily Bible study, personal quiet times each day, family Bible studies, daily worship experiences, engagement in spiritual mentoring, and evangelistic efforts. They also had a series of beliefs that were much more likely than those of typical born again adults to coincide with biblical teachings. Their self-perceptions were also dramatically different than that of other born again adults.
For related information, see the March 6th Barna Update click here
Involvement in a house church is rapidly growing, although the transition is occurring with some trepidation: four out of every five house church participants maintain some connection to a conventional church as well.
For related information, see the June 19th Barna Update click here
Evaluating spiritual maturity remains an elusive process for clergy as well as individuals. Across the nation, the only measure of spiritual health used by at least half of all pastors was the extent of volunteer activity or ministry involvement. Adults were no more consistent in their self-examination of their spirituality.
For related information, see the January 10th Barna Update click here
Most Americans have a period of time during their teen years when they are actively engaged in a church youth group. However, Barna’s tracking of young people showed that most of them had disengaged from organized religion during their twenties.
For related information, see the September 11th Barna Update click here
A comparison of people’s faith before and after the September 11 terrorist attack showed that five years after the momentous day, none of the 19 faith measures studied had undergone statistically significant change. Those measures covered aspects such as religious behaviors, beliefs, spiritual commitment and self-identity.
For related information, see the August 28th Barna Update click here
Seven out of ten parents claim they are effective at developing the spiritual maturity of their children, but the Barna survey among 8-to-12-year-olds discovered that only one-third of them say a church has made “a positive difference” in their life; one-third contend that prayer is very important in their life; most of them would rather be popular than to do what is morally right. In fact, “tweeners” (those ages 8 to 12) deem their family to be vitally important in their life, but just 57% said they look forward to spending time with their family and only one out of every three say it is easy for them to talk to their parents about things that matter to them.
For related information, see the September 30th Barna Update click here
Relatively few people – just one out of every six – believe that spiritual maturity is meant to be developed within the context of a local church or within the context of a community of faith.
For related information, see the April 18th Barna Update click here
Five of the highest-profile Christian leaders – Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, James Dobson, Tim LaHaye and T.D. Jakes – were unknown to a majority of the population. Most of those leaders were also unknown to most born again Christians.
For related information, see the November 27th Barna Update click here
The faith contours of America continue to shift substantially over the course of time. The proportion of adults who are born again has risen dramatically in the past quarter century, from 31% to 45%. During the past two decades, every spiritual behavior has fluctuated significantly, with recent upsurge in Bible reading, church attendance, and small group involvement.
For related information, see the March 27th Barna Update click here
Third, Barna's analysis of the 4 themes in the patterns: George Barna noted that there were four themes that consistently emerged from the various surveys his firm conducted throughout the year.
“First of all,” noted Barna, “Americans are very comfortable with religious faith. Most adults and even teenagers see themselves as people of faith. Toward that end, they have definite opinions about religion, they possess well-honed beliefs, and invest substantial amounts of their time, money and energy in religious activities. Faith and spirituality remain hot issues in people’s lives. The mass media, through news and feature stories, also play a role in keeping spiritual issues in the forefront of people’s minds.”
“Second,” he continued, “people do not have an accurate view of themselves when it comes to spirituality. American Christians are not as devoted to their faith as they like to believe. They have positive feelings about the importance of faith, but their faith is rarely the focal point of their life or a critical factor in their decision-making. The fact that few people take the time to evaluate their spiritual journey, or to develop benchmarks or indicators of their spiritual health, facilitates a distorted view of the prominence and purity of faith in their life.”
Barna’s third theme was that if people’s faith is objectively measured against a biblical standard of how faith is to be practiced, Americans are spiritually lukewarm. “Very limited effort is devoted to spiritual growth. Most Americans experience ‘accidental spiritual growth’ since there is generally no plan or process other than showing up at a church and absorbing a few ideas here and there. Even then, few people have a defined understanding of what they are hoping to become, as followers of Christ.” Barna attributed much of this to the numerous distractions common in most people’s lives.
Finally, the bestselling author of nearly 40 books contended that the most intriguing blip on the radar screen is the growth of various converging movements of deeply spiritual people who are departing from the conventional forms and communities of faith. “The Revolutionary community – which incorporates divergent but compatible groups of people who are seeking to make their faith the driving force in their life – is reshaping American faith in ways which we are just beginning to understand.” Few researchers and journalists are tracking the behavior and beliefs of those nascent segments. "
Fourth, his view of the horizon of the future in American religious trends:
When asked what he saw on the horizon regarding Americans’ faith, Barna described findings from some research currently in process related to the future of faith. He listed three general patterns he expects to gain prominence in the coming years.
Diversity. There will be new forms of spiritual leadership, different expressions of faith, and greater variety in when and where people meet together to be communities of faith. Ecumenism will expand, as the emerging generations pay less attention to doctrine and more attention to relationships and experiences. Barna predicted that there will be a broader network of micro-faith communities built around lifestyle affinities, such as gay communities of faith, marketplace professionals who gather for faith experiences, and so forth.
Bifurcation. Barna expects to see a widening gap between the intensely committed and those who are casually involved in faith matters. The difference will become strikingly evident between those who make faith the core of their life and those who simply attach a religious component on to an already mature lifestyle.
Media. Spiritual content and experiences will be increasingly related to the use of media. New technologies that will gain market share over the coming decade will significantly reshape how people experience and express their faith, and the ways in which they form communities of faith.
During the past year Barna formed a company (Good News Holdings) with a group of media professionals to approach the faith community not only with facts and figures drawn from research but also with stories and imagery conveyed through media. Asked why he took this new approach, he stated that the job of a servant of God is to be an obedient missionary. “It’s important to go where the people are whom you wish to reach with your message, and then to communicate that message through the language and symbols that they understand,” he explained. “The typical American spends roughly twenty times more hours each week engaged with media than involved with all forms of traditional religious activity. In our society there is a false barrier between those two worlds, and we’re trying to bridge the gap.”
I will post more of my comments in the comments, but I think he is right on in his "most intriguing development of 2006" and his expectation of it continuing in the future, that is the growth of new forms of spiritual community made up of more dedicated "Revolutionaries" (see my earlier post on Barna's book "Revolution"). The question is how will it take shape or will it among Christian progressives. But he has outlined a way again to audit your own community, your own tradition, your own association as to how is it engaging with Diversity, Bifurcation, Media.
First, Barna identified some of the most prolific news stories of the year that involved religion:
1. the role of evangelicals in the mid-term elections,
2. Hollywood’s pursuit of the Christian audience,
3. scandals concerning priests and ministers,
4. the shooting of five Amish school children and their community’s response,
5. the internal politics of the Episcopal Church,
6. the controversy involving Muslims and the Pope.
Offhand, I pretty much agree with the list. But I would rate them in this order, not of newsworthiness by the way, but of lasting significance:
1. Hollywood--media always shapes meaning and leads to organizational embodiment
2. Episcopals--emblematic of widening rift in what it means to be Christian, new kind of Reformation
3. Evangelical shift--politics and religion will get murkier, not less so; the polarization into the Christian Right and the Secular Progressives, as so many wish to keep alive, will be history as the Center holds. Might throw in here news items surrounding Stem-Cell, also the spiritual dimensions of Immigration Debate, the emergence of Hilary and Obama and McCain as emblematic of Center on these issues.
4. Scandals--Haggard, et al. part of the shift toward decentralized celebrity-less spirituality.
5. Muslim and Pope--"Western Civilization" "Christian Europe" "Inter-religious engagement that is based on differences" in 100 years this could be seen as the most significant, and have boiled over in this flat world to the American scene.
6. Shooting and Response. Shootings will continue, but will the response of the Amish become a touchstone of response and lead to changes in understandings of justice?
Second, Barna's own 12 most significant findings of 2006 based on the year's research, in his order of what he deems most important. Details below.
1. Disparity between public claims and claims of regular church-goers, and perceptions by pastors
2. 75 percent of teenagers engage at least once in some form of "psychic or witchcraft" experience while only 30 percent of churches seem concerned enough to teach on it.
3. "Holiness" not a concern.
4. wide difference between what he calls "Christian Revolutionaries" (see his book called Revolution) who are dedicated to living out faith fully, and the "born-again" whose faith is mostly in profession.
5. Rise of house churches, though most (80 percent) in house church still have some connection to more formal church organization.
6. Very few are engaged in spiritual gifts discernment, and for those that do it is still seen as related to "volunteerism."
7. high rate of involvement in faith community in teen years drops off in the twenties.
8. post 9-11 faith rise dropped off five years later back to normal
9. disconnect between perceptions of parents about faith development of their children, and what children report.
10. only 1 out of 6 think spiritual faith maturity should be developed within context of a church community.
11. few Americans recognize names of top Christian book-sellers and pastors.
12. numbers of people claiming "born-again" continues to rise, as does bible study and small group involvement.
My own rearrangment of the order of importance of those 12 findings of his would be as follows:
My one is his number 10---loss of interest in church. Old news but all flows from it.
My two is his number 4---rise of "revolutionaries" becoming distinct different faith grouping
My three is his number 5--rise of house church
My four is his number 9--parental/children disconnect
My five is his number 1--difference in perception in pew and pulpit
My six is his number 6---no spiritual gifts discernment going on, really, anywhere
My seven is his number 2--not for the obvious spiritual warfare alert as he sees it, but as an indicator of the rise of fantasy as personal spiritual allegiance and practice
My eight is his number 12--indicating rise of importance in seeking intimacy and Story
My nine is his number 3--holiness dropping off the chart, probably for good reason (see Paul's admonition in Romans that God is for the unrighteous), but the loss of moral center, community values, and rise of uncontrolled behavior and addictions should be of more vital concern, especially to progressives.
My ten is his number 7--losing young adults to status quo faith communities
My eleven is his number 11--lack of recognition just shows secular/spiritual divide widening
My twelve is his number 8--post 9-11 illusions and disillusions.
(the order of these also shows a relationship between them to the general shift away from churched culture to dechurched and unchurched culture, to the rise of generational cultural differences, and cultural modernity's demise).
Here is Barna's elaboration on the findings and links to the surveys from this past year:
Although large majorities of the public claim to be “deeply spiritual” and say that their religious faith is “very important” in their life, only 15% of those who regularly attend a Christian church ranked their relationship with God as the top priority in their life. As alarming as that finding was, its significance was magnified by research showing that on average pastors believe that 70% of the adults in their congregation consider their relationship with God to be their highest priority in life.
For related information, see the January 10th Barna Update click here
Three out of every four teenagers have engaged in at least one type of psychic or witchcraft-related activity. Among the most common of those endeavors are using a Ouija board, reading books about witchcraft or Wicca, playing games involving sorcery or witchcraft, having a “professional” do a palm reading or having their fortune told. Conversely, during the past year fewer than three out of every ten churched teenagers had received any teaching from their church about elements of the supernatural.
For related information, see the January 23rd Barna Update click here
The notion of personal holiness has slipped out of the consciousness of the vast majority of Christians. While just 21% of adults consider themselves to be holy, by their own admission large numbers have no idea what “holiness” means and only one out of every three (35%) believe that God expects people to become holy.
For related information, see the Februrary 20th Barna Update click here
The growing movement of Christian Revolutionaries in the U.S. distinguished themselves from an already-select group of people – born again Christians – through their deeds, beliefs and self-views. Revolutionaries demonstrated substantially higher levels of community service, financial contributions, daily Bible study, personal quiet times each day, family Bible studies, daily worship experiences, engagement in spiritual mentoring, and evangelistic efforts. They also had a series of beliefs that were much more likely than those of typical born again adults to coincide with biblical teachings. Their self-perceptions were also dramatically different than that of other born again adults.
For related information, see the March 6th Barna Update click here
Involvement in a house church is rapidly growing, although the transition is occurring with some trepidation: four out of every five house church participants maintain some connection to a conventional church as well.
For related information, see the June 19th Barna Update click here
Evaluating spiritual maturity remains an elusive process for clergy as well as individuals. Across the nation, the only measure of spiritual health used by at least half of all pastors was the extent of volunteer activity or ministry involvement. Adults were no more consistent in their self-examination of their spirituality.
For related information, see the January 10th Barna Update click here
Most Americans have a period of time during their teen years when they are actively engaged in a church youth group. However, Barna’s tracking of young people showed that most of them had disengaged from organized religion during their twenties.
For related information, see the September 11th Barna Update click here
A comparison of people’s faith before and after the September 11 terrorist attack showed that five years after the momentous day, none of the 19 faith measures studied had undergone statistically significant change. Those measures covered aspects such as religious behaviors, beliefs, spiritual commitment and self-identity.
For related information, see the August 28th Barna Update click here
Seven out of ten parents claim they are effective at developing the spiritual maturity of their children, but the Barna survey among 8-to-12-year-olds discovered that only one-third of them say a church has made “a positive difference” in their life; one-third contend that prayer is very important in their life; most of them would rather be popular than to do what is morally right. In fact, “tweeners” (those ages 8 to 12) deem their family to be vitally important in their life, but just 57% said they look forward to spending time with their family and only one out of every three say it is easy for them to talk to their parents about things that matter to them.
For related information, see the September 30th Barna Update click here
Relatively few people – just one out of every six – believe that spiritual maturity is meant to be developed within the context of a local church or within the context of a community of faith.
For related information, see the April 18th Barna Update click here
Five of the highest-profile Christian leaders – Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, James Dobson, Tim LaHaye and T.D. Jakes – were unknown to a majority of the population. Most of those leaders were also unknown to most born again Christians.
For related information, see the November 27th Barna Update click here
The faith contours of America continue to shift substantially over the course of time. The proportion of adults who are born again has risen dramatically in the past quarter century, from 31% to 45%. During the past two decades, every spiritual behavior has fluctuated significantly, with recent upsurge in Bible reading, church attendance, and small group involvement.
For related information, see the March 27th Barna Update click here
Third, Barna's analysis of the 4 themes in the patterns: George Barna noted that there were four themes that consistently emerged from the various surveys his firm conducted throughout the year.
“First of all,” noted Barna, “Americans are very comfortable with religious faith. Most adults and even teenagers see themselves as people of faith. Toward that end, they have definite opinions about religion, they possess well-honed beliefs, and invest substantial amounts of their time, money and energy in religious activities. Faith and spirituality remain hot issues in people’s lives. The mass media, through news and feature stories, also play a role in keeping spiritual issues in the forefront of people’s minds.”
“Second,” he continued, “people do not have an accurate view of themselves when it comes to spirituality. American Christians are not as devoted to their faith as they like to believe. They have positive feelings about the importance of faith, but their faith is rarely the focal point of their life or a critical factor in their decision-making. The fact that few people take the time to evaluate their spiritual journey, or to develop benchmarks or indicators of their spiritual health, facilitates a distorted view of the prominence and purity of faith in their life.”
Barna’s third theme was that if people’s faith is objectively measured against a biblical standard of how faith is to be practiced, Americans are spiritually lukewarm. “Very limited effort is devoted to spiritual growth. Most Americans experience ‘accidental spiritual growth’ since there is generally no plan or process other than showing up at a church and absorbing a few ideas here and there. Even then, few people have a defined understanding of what they are hoping to become, as followers of Christ.” Barna attributed much of this to the numerous distractions common in most people’s lives.
Finally, the bestselling author of nearly 40 books contended that the most intriguing blip on the radar screen is the growth of various converging movements of deeply spiritual people who are departing from the conventional forms and communities of faith. “The Revolutionary community – which incorporates divergent but compatible groups of people who are seeking to make their faith the driving force in their life – is reshaping American faith in ways which we are just beginning to understand.” Few researchers and journalists are tracking the behavior and beliefs of those nascent segments. "
Fourth, his view of the horizon of the future in American religious trends:
When asked what he saw on the horizon regarding Americans’ faith, Barna described findings from some research currently in process related to the future of faith. He listed three general patterns he expects to gain prominence in the coming years.
Diversity. There will be new forms of spiritual leadership, different expressions of faith, and greater variety in when and where people meet together to be communities of faith. Ecumenism will expand, as the emerging generations pay less attention to doctrine and more attention to relationships and experiences. Barna predicted that there will be a broader network of micro-faith communities built around lifestyle affinities, such as gay communities of faith, marketplace professionals who gather for faith experiences, and so forth.
Bifurcation. Barna expects to see a widening gap between the intensely committed and those who are casually involved in faith matters. The difference will become strikingly evident between those who make faith the core of their life and those who simply attach a religious component on to an already mature lifestyle.
Media. Spiritual content and experiences will be increasingly related to the use of media. New technologies that will gain market share over the coming decade will significantly reshape how people experience and express their faith, and the ways in which they form communities of faith.
During the past year Barna formed a company (Good News Holdings) with a group of media professionals to approach the faith community not only with facts and figures drawn from research but also with stories and imagery conveyed through media. Asked why he took this new approach, he stated that the job of a servant of God is to be an obedient missionary. “It’s important to go where the people are whom you wish to reach with your message, and then to communicate that message through the language and symbols that they understand,” he explained. “The typical American spends roughly twenty times more hours each week engaged with media than involved with all forms of traditional religious activity. In our society there is a false barrier between those two worlds, and we’re trying to bridge the gap.”
I will post more of my comments in the comments, but I think he is right on in his "most intriguing development of 2006" and his expectation of it continuing in the future, that is the growth of new forms of spiritual community made up of more dedicated "Revolutionaries" (see my earlier post on Barna's book "Revolution"). The question is how will it take shape or will it among Christian progressives. But he has outlined a way again to audit your own community, your own tradition, your own association as to how is it engaging with Diversity, Bifurcation, Media.
Friday, December 01, 2006
"Supersized" mega-church Sociology and Christian Century article
I read in the latest Nov. 28 issue of The Christian Century there is an article called "Supersized" by Mark Chavez taking a look at the reasons behind the growth of mega-churches and the concentration of church goers in them. It is an excerpt of a longer essay in the Review of Religious Research back in June. I haven't had a chance to read the longer essay yet; also haven't yet found online link to the Christian Century article or the RRR essay but I suspect CC will have one up soon on their site at www.christiancentury.org.
The gist, or the old news: As Schaller has pointed out to us for many years, a majority of churches in America are small ones but the majority of church goers are going to churches in large and very large churches. Chavez documents this once again.
The analysis of why: Chavez says there is no one simple reason for this. On this he is right. As others have pointed out before, megachurches aren't reeling in the unchurched as much as attracting those already churched, to some degree. Of course there isn't a simple understanding of what constitutes "the unchurched." Maybe his longer essay goes into his use of the term. One of the categories not mentioned in his essay is for the "dechurched."
He writes "nor can we explain this trend by reference to some constant advantage of size. It is true that there are certain attractions to worshiping as part of a big group. But the advantages should have been apparent long ago, with the appearance of the first big churches, not just since 1970." What he includes in passing reference but doesn't give much credence to because it is difficult to quantify, is the role of generational changes which began to show up in the 1970s as the boomers swept fully into adulthood, and the boomers and their cultural wants and expectations have driven the rise of the megachurch. This is also one of the reasons why the next cultural wave is for the rise of organic smaller churches in reaction to the boomer churches. He addresses suburbanization and shows how it has been in place and in play in American culture longer than the megachurch impact, but again doesn't delve into the role of the boomers on the suburban scene.
He says another possible explanation is that they offer a new organizational form in tune with the rising cultural tide. But, he adds, the big churches of earlier eras had many of the hallmarks we see in megachurches now. Besides the boomer factor, however, I might point out the role of the non-denominational vs. earlier era denominational big church. His study focuses on looking at big churches in denominations without addressing more in depth the way the denominational big churches are more non-denominational than before, as well as bringing the mega-churches that are non-denominational.
The explanation he helpfully brings to the table is an economic one--rising costs to provide religious services, especially as boomers want which differ from earlier generations, drive out many of the smaller churches and those churches survive in this new climate who can afford to provide the services, and that is why, as Schaller points out, it is the very large and the very small who live on. The mid-size church, program-driven, suffers. Add in the internal conflict that entails when this happens, as churches get on treadmills of anxiety about maintaining their status quo, and add in the external conflict that happens especially when denominations are encountering cultural change and challenges (the cultural wars), and people looking for church life will flock to where there is less conflict spilling over into their lives.
The upshot? It takes an increasing amount of resources concentrated to be able to thrive as a very large church in a very large church world. Especially if you are trying to create one from virtually nothing, i.e. to replicate Saddleback. To get there you should take your largest churches and healthiest mid-size churches and teach them how to multiply themselves.
The other upshot is that the emergent organic movement is seeking to fill in some of the gaps between the old mega-church and the old smaller church. As said, the megachurches aren't attracting the secularized unchurched as much as those who arent finding fulfillment in the smaller and more denominationally-identified churches; the emergent organic church not trying to be megachurch is more suited to connecting with the spirits of the unchurched and the dechurched. I think a lot of the movement of the boomers and Xers to the megachurch whether non-denominational or not was in line with the organizational dysfunction of the smaller mainline churches; the organic church is able to offer a different model but without the spectator-driven model of the megachurch. As Whitsell's book (posts below) shows, organic and mega aren't actually contradictions in terms either in all cases; but these growing and developing on the scene churches weren't a part, as far as I can tell, of Chavez' research.
Again, look for ways to take your big middle and your small large churches and multiply them in new ways, poly-site, video groups, turning small group ministry into networks of house churches; and also find ways to nurture and network and fund as much as possible the entrepeneurs of the emergent organic movement among you in order to ride the now and coming wave of anti-mega micro, simple, organic church next wave.
As I read the Christian Century article I kept thinking how there was a kind of disconnect between the statistics of the denominational mega churches Chavez' work looked out, and the narratives and stories of so many of the megachurches themselves. And when you read or hear the stories of those churches as individuals you want to put them into a larger statistical understanding. Now I am not so sure you can ever do both--but it is helpful to have both to see the limitations of both approaches. And as I read the article, I kept thinking about how much is left out, theologically and scripturally, from such articles that is important for planters themselves and for the churches themselves. He ends the article by talking about how much of the change we don't understand, the causes and consequences--and that is right; we won't ever fully grasp the way the Spirit moves and forms itself to meet God's present and future. And yet there is so much of the certainty of the passion of the imperative to be involved in this, all of this, that no statistical curve can ever capture.
The gist, or the old news: As Schaller has pointed out to us for many years, a majority of churches in America are small ones but the majority of church goers are going to churches in large and very large churches. Chavez documents this once again.
The analysis of why: Chavez says there is no one simple reason for this. On this he is right. As others have pointed out before, megachurches aren't reeling in the unchurched as much as attracting those already churched, to some degree. Of course there isn't a simple understanding of what constitutes "the unchurched." Maybe his longer essay goes into his use of the term. One of the categories not mentioned in his essay is for the "dechurched."
He writes "nor can we explain this trend by reference to some constant advantage of size. It is true that there are certain attractions to worshiping as part of a big group. But the advantages should have been apparent long ago, with the appearance of the first big churches, not just since 1970." What he includes in passing reference but doesn't give much credence to because it is difficult to quantify, is the role of generational changes which began to show up in the 1970s as the boomers swept fully into adulthood, and the boomers and their cultural wants and expectations have driven the rise of the megachurch. This is also one of the reasons why the next cultural wave is for the rise of organic smaller churches in reaction to the boomer churches. He addresses suburbanization and shows how it has been in place and in play in American culture longer than the megachurch impact, but again doesn't delve into the role of the boomers on the suburban scene.
He says another possible explanation is that they offer a new organizational form in tune with the rising cultural tide. But, he adds, the big churches of earlier eras had many of the hallmarks we see in megachurches now. Besides the boomer factor, however, I might point out the role of the non-denominational vs. earlier era denominational big church. His study focuses on looking at big churches in denominations without addressing more in depth the way the denominational big churches are more non-denominational than before, as well as bringing the mega-churches that are non-denominational.
The explanation he helpfully brings to the table is an economic one--rising costs to provide religious services, especially as boomers want which differ from earlier generations, drive out many of the smaller churches and those churches survive in this new climate who can afford to provide the services, and that is why, as Schaller points out, it is the very large and the very small who live on. The mid-size church, program-driven, suffers. Add in the internal conflict that entails when this happens, as churches get on treadmills of anxiety about maintaining their status quo, and add in the external conflict that happens especially when denominations are encountering cultural change and challenges (the cultural wars), and people looking for church life will flock to where there is less conflict spilling over into their lives.
The upshot? It takes an increasing amount of resources concentrated to be able to thrive as a very large church in a very large church world. Especially if you are trying to create one from virtually nothing, i.e. to replicate Saddleback. To get there you should take your largest churches and healthiest mid-size churches and teach them how to multiply themselves.
The other upshot is that the emergent organic movement is seeking to fill in some of the gaps between the old mega-church and the old smaller church. As said, the megachurches aren't attracting the secularized unchurched as much as those who arent finding fulfillment in the smaller and more denominationally-identified churches; the emergent organic church not trying to be megachurch is more suited to connecting with the spirits of the unchurched and the dechurched. I think a lot of the movement of the boomers and Xers to the megachurch whether non-denominational or not was in line with the organizational dysfunction of the smaller mainline churches; the organic church is able to offer a different model but without the spectator-driven model of the megachurch. As Whitsell's book (posts below) shows, organic and mega aren't actually contradictions in terms either in all cases; but these growing and developing on the scene churches weren't a part, as far as I can tell, of Chavez' research.
Again, look for ways to take your big middle and your small large churches and multiply them in new ways, poly-site, video groups, turning small group ministry into networks of house churches; and also find ways to nurture and network and fund as much as possible the entrepeneurs of the emergent organic movement among you in order to ride the now and coming wave of anti-mega micro, simple, organic church next wave.
As I read the Christian Century article I kept thinking how there was a kind of disconnect between the statistics of the denominational mega churches Chavez' work looked out, and the narratives and stories of so many of the megachurches themselves. And when you read or hear the stories of those churches as individuals you want to put them into a larger statistical understanding. Now I am not so sure you can ever do both--but it is helpful to have both to see the limitations of both approaches. And as I read the article, I kept thinking about how much is left out, theologically and scripturally, from such articles that is important for planters themselves and for the churches themselves. He ends the article by talking about how much of the change we don't understand, the causes and consequences--and that is right; we won't ever fully grasp the way the Spirit moves and forms itself to meet God's present and future. And yet there is so much of the certainty of the passion of the imperative to be involved in this, all of this, that no statistical curve can ever capture.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
slipping influence of Christian leaders in U.S. culture? or just print influence?
From recent work by the Barna Group:
Rick Warren--three out of every four adults (72 percent) say they have never heard of him, including 63 percent of born-again Christians.
James Dobson--Almost six out of 10 adults (57 percent) had never heard of him, including nearly half of born-agains.
T.D. Jakes--two out of three (68 percent) have never heard of him, including 55 percent of born-agains.
Tim LaHaye--three out of four adults (73 percent) have never heard of him, including 63 percent of born-agains.
Joel Osteen--unknown to two thirds of the public (67 percent), including 57 percent of born-agains.
Anne Rice--over half (55 percent) didn't know her.
I am not sure if the familarity would rise if only the books by these people were judged by familiarity, but that might have been interesting to survey.
Here is a breakdown for positive (including very favorable or somewhat favorable) or negative or never heard of or don't know image about those folks and others who were picked to be included in the survey.
John Ashcroft--36 percent positive; 23 percent negative, 31 percent never heard of, 10 percent don't know
George Bush--47 percent positive, 50 percent negative, 1 never heard of, 3 don't know
Bill Clinton--64, 32, 1, 4
Katie Couric--57, 16, 22 never heard of, 6
James Dobson--27 positive, 8 negative, 57, 9
Mel Gibson--69, 21, 4, 5
Faith Hill--71, 5, 18, 6
T.D. Jakes--22, 4, 68, 8
Tim LaHaye--13, 5, 73, 8
Tim McGraw--72, 6, 14, 8
Rosie O'Donell--42, 47, 5, 6
Joel Osteen--18, 6, 67, 11
Anne Rice--27, 6, 55, 12
Britney Spears 34, 54, 3, 9
Rick Warren--12, 5, 72, 11
Denzel Washington--85, 2, 7, 6
Breakdown by race: "whites" surveyed didn't rate anyone with a very favorable impression; among 'blacks' three received such high marks--Washington, Clinton, and Jakes. Among hispanics, only Washington received such an impression.
Barna's concluding analysis: media stars in music and movies have a higher degree of influence than people who write books. This might explain, or back up, his own and the evangelical world's commitment to making "Christian-valued" films and TV projects.
You can read more at www.barna.org
To some (evangelical Christians), these survey findings might be disheartening; to some (progressive Christians and non-Christian religious leaders in the U.S., these findings might bring either a gasp or a sigh or relief. To all groups it should be a challenge if you are interested in attempting to get "your message" into the minds of U.S. citizens in the hopes of being able to shape those minds and hearts, especially through the print culture. As well as a commentary on the reigning and rising dominant secular culture of media/entertainment/consumerism. It also brings to mind that we have lost or are losing the "mass-mindset" that marked so much of the 20th century and are in an era of increasing micro-niche-cultures. The "celebrity empire" bucks this trend, but I wonder if it will be able to do so in the years to come; the whole 15 minutes of fame may come to more and more, and so the long-term effect will be less and less.
For planters: lessons on what to use in building your teams and growing disciples? More films and fewer books on leadership? I have done both and think I need to get more intentional about using our church Wednesday night film encounter as a vehicle for specifically being the church in the world and not just for generic spiritual lessons that grow out of the films. And I know it was a reminder for me even on this blog to go back to the beginning and do for film updates what I have been doing by surveying books in both the fields of progressive and evangelical worlds.
Does it have something to say about the downgrading influence of television (Osteen, Jakes, et al) on faith? The more channels there are, the more opportunities these folks are only preaching to the choir; that helps to a degree, but is it what the expense of resources should go toward? For progressive Christians and the "spiritual left" this could shape where attention should be paid, and not tried to mirror or mimic others--maybe finding and multiplying the niches like NPR's Speaking of Faith, and other venues.
Rick Warren--three out of every four adults (72 percent) say they have never heard of him, including 63 percent of born-again Christians.
James Dobson--Almost six out of 10 adults (57 percent) had never heard of him, including nearly half of born-agains.
T.D. Jakes--two out of three (68 percent) have never heard of him, including 55 percent of born-agains.
Tim LaHaye--three out of four adults (73 percent) have never heard of him, including 63 percent of born-agains.
Joel Osteen--unknown to two thirds of the public (67 percent), including 57 percent of born-agains.
Anne Rice--over half (55 percent) didn't know her.
I am not sure if the familarity would rise if only the books by these people were judged by familiarity, but that might have been interesting to survey.
Here is a breakdown for positive (including very favorable or somewhat favorable) or negative or never heard of or don't know image about those folks and others who were picked to be included in the survey.
John Ashcroft--36 percent positive; 23 percent negative, 31 percent never heard of, 10 percent don't know
George Bush--47 percent positive, 50 percent negative, 1 never heard of, 3 don't know
Bill Clinton--64, 32, 1, 4
Katie Couric--57, 16, 22 never heard of, 6
James Dobson--27 positive, 8 negative, 57, 9
Mel Gibson--69, 21, 4, 5
Faith Hill--71, 5, 18, 6
T.D. Jakes--22, 4, 68, 8
Tim LaHaye--13, 5, 73, 8
Tim McGraw--72, 6, 14, 8
Rosie O'Donell--42, 47, 5, 6
Joel Osteen--18, 6, 67, 11
Anne Rice--27, 6, 55, 12
Britney Spears 34, 54, 3, 9
Rick Warren--12, 5, 72, 11
Denzel Washington--85, 2, 7, 6
Breakdown by race: "whites" surveyed didn't rate anyone with a very favorable impression; among 'blacks' three received such high marks--Washington, Clinton, and Jakes. Among hispanics, only Washington received such an impression.
Barna's concluding analysis: media stars in music and movies have a higher degree of influence than people who write books. This might explain, or back up, his own and the evangelical world's commitment to making "Christian-valued" films and TV projects.
You can read more at www.barna.org
To some (evangelical Christians), these survey findings might be disheartening; to some (progressive Christians and non-Christian religious leaders in the U.S., these findings might bring either a gasp or a sigh or relief. To all groups it should be a challenge if you are interested in attempting to get "your message" into the minds of U.S. citizens in the hopes of being able to shape those minds and hearts, especially through the print culture. As well as a commentary on the reigning and rising dominant secular culture of media/entertainment/consumerism. It also brings to mind that we have lost or are losing the "mass-mindset" that marked so much of the 20th century and are in an era of increasing micro-niche-cultures. The "celebrity empire" bucks this trend, but I wonder if it will be able to do so in the years to come; the whole 15 minutes of fame may come to more and more, and so the long-term effect will be less and less.
For planters: lessons on what to use in building your teams and growing disciples? More films and fewer books on leadership? I have done both and think I need to get more intentional about using our church Wednesday night film encounter as a vehicle for specifically being the church in the world and not just for generic spiritual lessons that grow out of the films. And I know it was a reminder for me even on this blog to go back to the beginning and do for film updates what I have been doing by surveying books in both the fields of progressive and evangelical worlds.
Does it have something to say about the downgrading influence of television (Osteen, Jakes, et al) on faith? The more channels there are, the more opportunities these folks are only preaching to the choir; that helps to a degree, but is it what the expense of resources should go toward? For progressive Christians and the "spiritual left" this could shape where attention should be paid, and not tried to mirror or mimic others--maybe finding and multiplying the niches like NPR's Speaking of Faith, and other venues.
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
If I could co-mingle two books, audiences...
Here are two new books who are reporting about new vitality and forms taking shape in the "ecclesia", coming from two different places in the religious landscape of Christianity, and taken together both have much to teach about transforming or revolutionizing what it means to be church today, with good lessons for church planting. "Christianity for the Rest of Us: How the neighborhood church is transforming the faith" (Harper SanFrancisco) by Diana Butler Bass, and "Inside the organic church: learning from 12 emerging congregations" by Bob Whitesel.
Both books discuss specific churches, either doing new things or new churches. Bass' book looks at ways mainline and moderate to liberal Protestant churches are or can tap into ancient practices of Christian communities to bring a revival to the lives of their members and the churches. She has a guiding trinity of touchstones called tradition, practice, and wisdom. Her ten signposts of renewal cover new focuses and intentionality on hospitality, discernment, healing, contemplation, testimony, diversity, justice, worship, reflection, and beauty. Whitesel looks at more recent and emerging churches, church plants, and finds a few key themes at work--his "four melodies" are orthodoxy, authenticity, social and spiritual engagement, and mission. Each of the churches he looks at are like prism views or strains of these four main melodies: multi-site planting, incarnation in otherness, house churches and large church, micro-cultures, sacred spaces and art and nesting plant, cross-cultural communication, liturgy, stations and non-ministerial leadership, hardcore postmodernists, morphing into organic, interactivity and with nature, improvisation.
You will note that outside of worship and service to others there is very little overlap in these major phrases and emphases in these two books. You might find yourself gravitating toward one or the other of these lists of words. I think that is natural. I would encourage you to spend more time with the book whose phrases are most strange to you.
Both books in their different ways are chronicling a movement of churches seeking renewed spirit in the continuing wake of the mega-church and church growth movement. Bass' book is arguing that Christianity is alive and well outside the mega-church the media loves so well. There is a sense that the Christian faith emerging within the mostly established churches surveyed by her is happening as people take their faith more seriously than what might be perceived is happening in mega-churches. I get a whiff of Puritanism here (and those that know me know that it isn't necessarily a bad thing) that in the mainline Protestant churches here there is a deeper, realer, more serious Christianity, the real church. This comes through in Whitesell's book, too, and I have blogged on this aspect of the emergent church before. In his book too there is the understanding that the emergent, or rather organic churches are taking root because their leaders are rebelling against the mega-churches of their parent's generation. Of course, the mega-churches seem to be doing just fine from my point of view, but they are no longer per se on the cutting edge of church and culture. These two books point to where some of the new vitality is happening.
What is helpful from Bass' book:
First, let me say that I have briefly mentioned the book before, and somewhat faulted it (though I understand that its focus shaped its reportage) for helpfully emphasizing ancient practices of Christianity that are or will lead to renewal of our churches but without putting much attention on the ancient practice of church planting itself, and how it can lead to a renewal in many other areas since it automatically connects the church with God's revealing spirit outside the church and in the community. It is true that her book does mention one church in her focused survey that is described as a new congregation, and so is thought of as still a church plant, Cornerstone UMC in Naples, founded in 1996. The style of their church as she describes it is very much in the "emergent mode." It is reclaiming tradition and is one of the few places in the book where a deep sense of missional growth comes through. The pastor is quoted as saying "we're more interested in forming disciples than recruiting members." But from a look at the church through its web site, it still seems to be after ten years a single church growing in a single place rather than having church-planting especially in an organic way in its DNA. Nothing wrong with this; it is doing what it is doing well and touching lives and transforming them and the world. However, it is just not in the same ecclesia field as the organic movements and groups in more evangelical settings as depicted in Whitesell's book and the Bolger and Gibbs book, Emerging Churches, for example, or others that survey the emergent world (see the book section of this blog).
But the book is helpful and hopeful for progressive church planters. It may not be an explicit guide (we are still waiting on that one) as others find in more conservative theologically oriented churches. But church planters I think can use the 10 signposts of renewals as audits of a sort on how they are helping grow disciples that will grow other disciples, especially if you take the 10 windows and move what is chronicled here as happening "within" the church organization and see how it can be incarnated organically without. For us progressive, we should take the ten signs and merge them with the lessons from the evangelicals. One other thing I like about the Bass book is that it focuses on reclaiming the neighborhood church, the new village church. This is in keeping with what Sally Morganthaler and many other new emergent leaders talk about in terms of looking right around you to the lives nearest you and moving away from the "regional" church that so marked the mega-church peak. (I have recently read in the latest Net Results issue Lyle Schaller still cautioning against churches putting their eggs in the neighborhood basket, and will take a closer look at this in a bit). I also like Bass' built in at the back study guide with questions from each of the sections. Good conversation starters that can keep many a small group going, can be used in building leadership teams and I think discovering where particular leaders' gifts might be (we can't all be great ambassadors for all 10 signs of renewal) that would help in starting new church plants. I intend to use them.
She writes: "I do not deny that mainline Protestantism is in trouble. Some of its institutions, unresponsive to change, are probably beyond hope of recovery or repair. I also believe, however, that livey faith is not located in buildings, programs, organizations, and structures. Rather, spiritual vitality lives in human beings; it is located in the heart of God's people and the communities they form." What I take away not only from the book, but from my own experiences and observations in churches similar to the ones surveyed here is that the Spirit is moving in places where many evangelical emergents can't see it, won't see it, but that even in these places the Spirit struggles to find expressions beyond the box called church.
It is also interesting to read Bass' book again after having read Gary Dorrien's book of liberal theology in 1950-2005. The "third way" of liberal theology he has delved into in his three volumes (see posts below) is reflected in what Bass calls the "creative third way" churches, those that are not evangelical in conservative theology and not culture-bound comfortable liberal social clubs.
What is helpful from Whitesel's book:
Bass' book looked at 50 churches in six mainline denominations (UCC, ELCA, ECUSA, UMC, PCUSA, and DoC) with 10 core research sites (1 UCC, 2 PCUSA, 1 UMC, 2 ELCA, and 4 Episcopal from her own denomination now). There is no overlap with Whitesel's 12 emerging congregations in the organic church: see my post below "meanwhile in the organic church". I want to lift up here the lessons from his four "melodies" and then highlight the variety of focuses and lessons that stood out for me from the examinations of the individual churches.
1. orthodoxy. He was somewhat surprised to find that the organic churches were not as heterodox as he had heard or feared they might be. I might say: give them time :), only half jesting. Actually there is an old dynamic at work here. The more others fear you might stray from the path, the more you are apt to stick right down the middle of it, until it becomes a rut even. I think of Luther, moving along reformation path church-wise, confronted with questions about whether a rethinking of the Trinity was at hand along with other "foundational" issues, and the answer was no, not so much because the Trinity was per se off-limits for reformation, but because the Princes, and the people, were believed to be able to withstand only so much change all at once. Of course the rethinking went on, as it does today, within and without orthodox churches, as it always has, but a major re-theological statement couldn't be had. orthodoxy won out. The same thing happened in the Cambridge Platform in Puritanism; they were continuing the reformation as they saw it within ecclesiology, but they were very clear that they weren't touching the Winchester Creeds. Of course, again, reformation in one area aided and abetted reformation eventually in other areas. Same may be true for organic churches. BUT, the lesson here that is helpful for progressive church planters is in Whitesel's words: "the theological milieu in which an organic church is birthed persists as a powerful predicator and guide to future theological behavior." Be clear about your theology, and how it is leading you to the church plant. If you aren't, one way or another, it will come back to bite you. Been there. Done that.
2. authenticity or unashamed spirituality. This is the generational thing, the connecting with post-boomers. There isn't one way to be authentic, not only within the more orthodox organic churches or between them and the churches Bass chronicles where there is also movements to be more authentic and unashamed of spiritual needs and expressions. If I had one area i might suggest boomer-concentrated churches focus on for transformation and explosion, it might be in getting over the reticence for this, as it will be the doorway to your future generations of leaders needed right now. Maybe it is easier for more pentecostal rich folks to do this, than for those in the more Enlightenment rich churches, but it is possible. I think of how at one large progessive church I know some of the worship services that people of all ages talk the most about and remember the most about are the annual youth services where authentic testimony is paramount.
3. social and spiritual engagement. walking the balance between spiritual inreach and social outreach, seeing the connection and weaving of the two. This is an area where there is real energy below the surface arising. He says boomer churches usually focused on one or the other. Emerging organic churches can't separate the two, anymore than they can secular/sacred space.
4. missional. The key to organic identity. Seeing everyone as missionaries and everywhere as the new mission field. There is here, as Whitsel makes clear, a continuation of thought from Newbigin and Guder who talked about the disconnect from Christian established churches and the increasingly post- or anti-Christian culture changing around them. I agree and wouldn't challenge the assumption. But where it leads I might. I am beginning to wonder if there isn't a lesson that might be passed on to the evangelicals from what we have experienced in one of my other hats, at the UU Christian Fellowship. We often attract folks who have been burned by their UU churches for either post or anti Christian cultures, either neglecting their spiritual nurture as Christians within our churches or suggesting they go elsewhere. So when they come into our loop they are doing so from a position of disgruntlement or discontent. One of the challenges is to help them heal and reattach to a church, small group, etc. But in the process there is a focus, perhaps inevitable, on the "harmful other." Groups that stay there will not be responsive to the needs of the world today, much less the lives among them. Intentional encouragement to move through that into discipleship, deepended because of the experience perhaps, is what is needed. So, in these organic orthodox churches, where the culture (be it secular or mega-church) is seen as the "harmful other" (and who can really complain that it isn't?), there might be the similar tendency to become places or refuges of disgruntlement, and I wonder what that might do in the long run for these organic churches. It seems from Whitesel's books that the most active and vibrant of these groups see culture as revelatory and mediums of art and film, even dangerous ones, not as something to be in spiritual war against but as places where transformation, ala St. Paul, can take place. What this has to do with the sense of mission and field and what kind of missionaries are needed today? There is something afoot moving beyond images of the mission field as "harmful other" and more like transformative partners. This might be the biggest rift theologically between those who shaped the church growth and mega-church movement of the 1970s and 1980s and the organic folks of this decade.
Speaking of mission fields, all of the American churches depicted in Whitesel's book are located in urban or semi-urban areas, the Phoenix and Denver and Seattle and Santa Cruz and Los Angeles and Minneapolises of the U.S. This is, I guess, part of the increasing urbanization of America as portrayed recently by the special issue of Time magazine. Places of young people on the move. I am just curious and would love to encounter more organic movements underway in the Nazareths of the contemporary society, but I will explore this more when I bring in a future post the demographics in Hal Taussig's new book listing 1,000 progressive churches, and do some comparison between the churches mentioned in all three of these new books.
Anyway, in Whitesel's book Each of the little chapters about the specific organic churches in this book is helpful and it is easy to build up, as it was in Bass' book, a kind of audit of topics to think about for your own gifts, ideas, areas to explore, what is missing. I will highlight these in summary fashion from his book in a future post.
Final comment: I would love to have some "crossroads" experiences where it might be possible for congregations explored in these two books, where closest together, to have some interactions and hear the responses about their understandings of Christian faith and the purpose of the church. Out of a comparison between the 10 core sites in Bass' book and the 10 in the U.S. from Whitesel's book, only in Seattle would this be possible between Phinney Ridge UMC explored by Bass and Church of the Apostles explored by Whitesel. Bringing in the other 40 churches visited by Bass, this would be possible in Minneapolis between Westminister Presbyterian Church and either Bluer or Solomon's Porch, and with a few more in Seattle, and between Scottsdale UCC and The Bridge, in Scottsdale, Arizona.
Both books discuss specific churches, either doing new things or new churches. Bass' book looks at ways mainline and moderate to liberal Protestant churches are or can tap into ancient practices of Christian communities to bring a revival to the lives of their members and the churches. She has a guiding trinity of touchstones called tradition, practice, and wisdom. Her ten signposts of renewal cover new focuses and intentionality on hospitality, discernment, healing, contemplation, testimony, diversity, justice, worship, reflection, and beauty. Whitesel looks at more recent and emerging churches, church plants, and finds a few key themes at work--his "four melodies" are orthodoxy, authenticity, social and spiritual engagement, and mission. Each of the churches he looks at are like prism views or strains of these four main melodies: multi-site planting, incarnation in otherness, house churches and large church, micro-cultures, sacred spaces and art and nesting plant, cross-cultural communication, liturgy, stations and non-ministerial leadership, hardcore postmodernists, morphing into organic, interactivity and with nature, improvisation.
You will note that outside of worship and service to others there is very little overlap in these major phrases and emphases in these two books. You might find yourself gravitating toward one or the other of these lists of words. I think that is natural. I would encourage you to spend more time with the book whose phrases are most strange to you.
Both books in their different ways are chronicling a movement of churches seeking renewed spirit in the continuing wake of the mega-church and church growth movement. Bass' book is arguing that Christianity is alive and well outside the mega-church the media loves so well. There is a sense that the Christian faith emerging within the mostly established churches surveyed by her is happening as people take their faith more seriously than what might be perceived is happening in mega-churches. I get a whiff of Puritanism here (and those that know me know that it isn't necessarily a bad thing) that in the mainline Protestant churches here there is a deeper, realer, more serious Christianity, the real church. This comes through in Whitesell's book, too, and I have blogged on this aspect of the emergent church before. In his book too there is the understanding that the emergent, or rather organic churches are taking root because their leaders are rebelling against the mega-churches of their parent's generation. Of course, the mega-churches seem to be doing just fine from my point of view, but they are no longer per se on the cutting edge of church and culture. These two books point to where some of the new vitality is happening.
What is helpful from Bass' book:
First, let me say that I have briefly mentioned the book before, and somewhat faulted it (though I understand that its focus shaped its reportage) for helpfully emphasizing ancient practices of Christianity that are or will lead to renewal of our churches but without putting much attention on the ancient practice of church planting itself, and how it can lead to a renewal in many other areas since it automatically connects the church with God's revealing spirit outside the church and in the community. It is true that her book does mention one church in her focused survey that is described as a new congregation, and so is thought of as still a church plant, Cornerstone UMC in Naples, founded in 1996. The style of their church as she describes it is very much in the "emergent mode." It is reclaiming tradition and is one of the few places in the book where a deep sense of missional growth comes through. The pastor is quoted as saying "we're more interested in forming disciples than recruiting members." But from a look at the church through its web site, it still seems to be after ten years a single church growing in a single place rather than having church-planting especially in an organic way in its DNA. Nothing wrong with this; it is doing what it is doing well and touching lives and transforming them and the world. However, it is just not in the same ecclesia field as the organic movements and groups in more evangelical settings as depicted in Whitesell's book and the Bolger and Gibbs book, Emerging Churches, for example, or others that survey the emergent world (see the book section of this blog).
But the book is helpful and hopeful for progressive church planters. It may not be an explicit guide (we are still waiting on that one) as others find in more conservative theologically oriented churches. But church planters I think can use the 10 signposts of renewals as audits of a sort on how they are helping grow disciples that will grow other disciples, especially if you take the 10 windows and move what is chronicled here as happening "within" the church organization and see how it can be incarnated organically without. For us progressive, we should take the ten signs and merge them with the lessons from the evangelicals. One other thing I like about the Bass book is that it focuses on reclaiming the neighborhood church, the new village church. This is in keeping with what Sally Morganthaler and many other new emergent leaders talk about in terms of looking right around you to the lives nearest you and moving away from the "regional" church that so marked the mega-church peak. (I have recently read in the latest Net Results issue Lyle Schaller still cautioning against churches putting their eggs in the neighborhood basket, and will take a closer look at this in a bit). I also like Bass' built in at the back study guide with questions from each of the sections. Good conversation starters that can keep many a small group going, can be used in building leadership teams and I think discovering where particular leaders' gifts might be (we can't all be great ambassadors for all 10 signs of renewal) that would help in starting new church plants. I intend to use them.
She writes: "I do not deny that mainline Protestantism is in trouble. Some of its institutions, unresponsive to change, are probably beyond hope of recovery or repair. I also believe, however, that livey faith is not located in buildings, programs, organizations, and structures. Rather, spiritual vitality lives in human beings; it is located in the heart of God's people and the communities they form." What I take away not only from the book, but from my own experiences and observations in churches similar to the ones surveyed here is that the Spirit is moving in places where many evangelical emergents can't see it, won't see it, but that even in these places the Spirit struggles to find expressions beyond the box called church.
It is also interesting to read Bass' book again after having read Gary Dorrien's book of liberal theology in 1950-2005. The "third way" of liberal theology he has delved into in his three volumes (see posts below) is reflected in what Bass calls the "creative third way" churches, those that are not evangelical in conservative theology and not culture-bound comfortable liberal social clubs.
What is helpful from Whitesel's book:
Bass' book looked at 50 churches in six mainline denominations (UCC, ELCA, ECUSA, UMC, PCUSA, and DoC) with 10 core research sites (1 UCC, 2 PCUSA, 1 UMC, 2 ELCA, and 4 Episcopal from her own denomination now). There is no overlap with Whitesel's 12 emerging congregations in the organic church: see my post below "meanwhile in the organic church". I want to lift up here the lessons from his four "melodies" and then highlight the variety of focuses and lessons that stood out for me from the examinations of the individual churches.
1. orthodoxy. He was somewhat surprised to find that the organic churches were not as heterodox as he had heard or feared they might be. I might say: give them time :), only half jesting. Actually there is an old dynamic at work here. The more others fear you might stray from the path, the more you are apt to stick right down the middle of it, until it becomes a rut even. I think of Luther, moving along reformation path church-wise, confronted with questions about whether a rethinking of the Trinity was at hand along with other "foundational" issues, and the answer was no, not so much because the Trinity was per se off-limits for reformation, but because the Princes, and the people, were believed to be able to withstand only so much change all at once. Of course the rethinking went on, as it does today, within and without orthodox churches, as it always has, but a major re-theological statement couldn't be had. orthodoxy won out. The same thing happened in the Cambridge Platform in Puritanism; they were continuing the reformation as they saw it within ecclesiology, but they were very clear that they weren't touching the Winchester Creeds. Of course, again, reformation in one area aided and abetted reformation eventually in other areas. Same may be true for organic churches. BUT, the lesson here that is helpful for progressive church planters is in Whitesel's words: "the theological milieu in which an organic church is birthed persists as a powerful predicator and guide to future theological behavior." Be clear about your theology, and how it is leading you to the church plant. If you aren't, one way or another, it will come back to bite you. Been there. Done that.
2. authenticity or unashamed spirituality. This is the generational thing, the connecting with post-boomers. There isn't one way to be authentic, not only within the more orthodox organic churches or between them and the churches Bass chronicles where there is also movements to be more authentic and unashamed of spiritual needs and expressions. If I had one area i might suggest boomer-concentrated churches focus on for transformation and explosion, it might be in getting over the reticence for this, as it will be the doorway to your future generations of leaders needed right now. Maybe it is easier for more pentecostal rich folks to do this, than for those in the more Enlightenment rich churches, but it is possible. I think of how at one large progessive church I know some of the worship services that people of all ages talk the most about and remember the most about are the annual youth services where authentic testimony is paramount.
3. social and spiritual engagement. walking the balance between spiritual inreach and social outreach, seeing the connection and weaving of the two. This is an area where there is real energy below the surface arising. He says boomer churches usually focused on one or the other. Emerging organic churches can't separate the two, anymore than they can secular/sacred space.
4. missional. The key to organic identity. Seeing everyone as missionaries and everywhere as the new mission field. There is here, as Whitsel makes clear, a continuation of thought from Newbigin and Guder who talked about the disconnect from Christian established churches and the increasingly post- or anti-Christian culture changing around them. I agree and wouldn't challenge the assumption. But where it leads I might. I am beginning to wonder if there isn't a lesson that might be passed on to the evangelicals from what we have experienced in one of my other hats, at the UU Christian Fellowship. We often attract folks who have been burned by their UU churches for either post or anti Christian cultures, either neglecting their spiritual nurture as Christians within our churches or suggesting they go elsewhere. So when they come into our loop they are doing so from a position of disgruntlement or discontent. One of the challenges is to help them heal and reattach to a church, small group, etc. But in the process there is a focus, perhaps inevitable, on the "harmful other." Groups that stay there will not be responsive to the needs of the world today, much less the lives among them. Intentional encouragement to move through that into discipleship, deepended because of the experience perhaps, is what is needed. So, in these organic orthodox churches, where the culture (be it secular or mega-church) is seen as the "harmful other" (and who can really complain that it isn't?), there might be the similar tendency to become places or refuges of disgruntlement, and I wonder what that might do in the long run for these organic churches. It seems from Whitesel's books that the most active and vibrant of these groups see culture as revelatory and mediums of art and film, even dangerous ones, not as something to be in spiritual war against but as places where transformation, ala St. Paul, can take place. What this has to do with the sense of mission and field and what kind of missionaries are needed today? There is something afoot moving beyond images of the mission field as "harmful other" and more like transformative partners. This might be the biggest rift theologically between those who shaped the church growth and mega-church movement of the 1970s and 1980s and the organic folks of this decade.
Speaking of mission fields, all of the American churches depicted in Whitesel's book are located in urban or semi-urban areas, the Phoenix and Denver and Seattle and Santa Cruz and Los Angeles and Minneapolises of the U.S. This is, I guess, part of the increasing urbanization of America as portrayed recently by the special issue of Time magazine. Places of young people on the move. I am just curious and would love to encounter more organic movements underway in the Nazareths of the contemporary society, but I will explore this more when I bring in a future post the demographics in Hal Taussig's new book listing 1,000 progressive churches, and do some comparison between the churches mentioned in all three of these new books.
Anyway, in Whitesel's book Each of the little chapters about the specific organic churches in this book is helpful and it is easy to build up, as it was in Bass' book, a kind of audit of topics to think about for your own gifts, ideas, areas to explore, what is missing. I will highlight these in summary fashion from his book in a future post.
Final comment: I would love to have some "crossroads" experiences where it might be possible for congregations explored in these two books, where closest together, to have some interactions and hear the responses about their understandings of Christian faith and the purpose of the church. Out of a comparison between the 10 core sites in Bass' book and the 10 in the U.S. from Whitesel's book, only in Seattle would this be possible between Phinney Ridge UMC explored by Bass and Church of the Apostles explored by Whitesel. Bringing in the other 40 churches visited by Bass, this would be possible in Minneapolis between Westminister Presbyterian Church and either Bluer or Solomon's Porch, and with a few more in Seattle, and between Scottsdale UCC and The Bridge, in Scottsdale, Arizona.
Thursday, November 16, 2006
Dorrien, pt. 6: On revealing the hidden theological renaissance
This is the final post presenting ideas from Gary Dorrien's latest book, the final volume in the series on 200 years of liberal theology in America. See others introducing the subject and focusing on specific Unitarian Universalist theologians below. This post deals with the summation and the call, focusing on the irony of the situation that as liberal churches and the movement in Protestantism and Catholicism declined in the last half of the 20th century, that liberal/progressive theology in many forms flourished in "a hidden renaissance." Upshot for me or my take on it: The shift from a churched to unchurched culture hit the churches hard who had been the place for putting liberal theology into action, which is why the ways it expanded and renewed itself often went unnoticed. The audience shrank for all the new stuff coming out of divinity schools, and in a post-denominational world where seminaries connected to denominations are perhaps the dying canaries in the cave, that being the location for vitality is a sure fire way to keep things hidden.
But, as this piece from Dorrien makes clear, the vitality and just plain truth of the matter for Christian faith that these progressive theologians have captured should be a compelling force for creation of new communities and audiences where the theologies can be deepened and spread. Which is the focus of the mission of this blog itself. I often bring progessives up to task for failure to engage with the post-evangelical Evangelicals and what they have to teach us, and as this series of posts and Dorrien's book make clear there is a lot that Evangelicals have to encounter and learn from the progressive theologians. They may be doing all right now ignoring this strand of liberal/liberation/progressive theology, and locating their own in the postmodern and postliberal theologies of Stanley Grenz, Stanley Hauerwas, George Lindbeck, Frei, Niehaus, and successors, as liberals themselves can learn from engaging with these too, but if they look at the theologians in Dorrien's book and treat them as lepers, they will be cutting off God's oxygen to their brain and forgetting Jesus' life lessons.
D: American theologians of the later twentieth century demonstrated the continuing vitality of the liberal tradition by fashioning complex and illuminating theologies that responded to secularism, new social movements, postmodernity, and a dramatically expanded awareness of religious and cultural pluralism. Yet they never felt that they were part of a renaissance...The secularizing tidal wave and social revolutions of the succedding generation fell hard on liberal schools, just as they flattened a regnant neo-orthodoxy. Personalism withered from lack of conviction and advocacy; evangelical liberalism was forsaken as well; even Niebuhr and Tillich were often forgotten; only the Whiteheadians sustained the conviction, productivity and ambition of a movement. [RR: Process theology saved my faith, gave me back God language and led to becoming Christian believer, but if your main theology takes a college or graduate degree to comprehend, you are in trouble; some of the most powerful stuff comes from pastors interpreting it and presenting it to general audience, and why it was good that Dorrien's book goes into the work of Borg, Spong, et al even though I haven't mentioned them in these posts.]
D: Theologian John H.S. Kerr explained that liberal theology was a strategy to keep increasingly secular modernists in the church, but by the late 1970s they were gone. Thus liberal theology lost its institutional mission. 'Those outside the Chruches were no longer interested in the liberal theologian's desire to qualify rather than replace what the Churches officially said in the realm of pure theology." The shades of difference between 'above' and 'below' Christologies meant nothing to secular types that associated religion with their grandparents. Liberal theology still appealed to some individuals, Kent allowed, but it no longer had important work to do for the church....[Dorrien then goes on to talk about the way the more conservative theologians of the past decades challenged liberal theologies as giving away too much faith, and counters with a good critique of their dismissals]...Contrary to Kent, the ecclesial relevance of liberal theology did not vanish with the church membership losses of the post-1960s generation. The mainline Protestant and progressive Catholic ectors of American Christianity claimed tens of millions of members; church study groups turned several theological liberals into best-selling authors; and intense ecclesiastical debates over gay and lesbian rights, war, and feminism made theological discourse unavoidable even for religious communities predisposed to avoid it.
D: American liberal theology began as a pastoral enterprise, and in its heyday it was led by academics at seminaries and divinity schools that maintained vital ties with affilliated religious communities. But its critics were right that liberal theology became more narrowly academic in the later twentieth century and that its academic versions did not win much of a following within the general population or among academics in other disciplines. [RR: because the culture-bound churches of the 60s-90s couldn't plant church planting churches in the new cultures, and I wonder to what degree liberal theology and its loss of gospel-centered focus and imperatives of melding liberal understandings of the Great Commandment and Great Commission had to do with creating the very environment which shrunk its audience and (seemed to) marginalize itself?]
D: [moving through the good work of Borg, etc. back to the academy with concluding remarks pointing the way to the future through the new postliberalism and renewed/new evangelism and understandings of Christian faith and culture as presented in the works of younger theologians like Kathryn Tanner and Philip Clayton, Chicago and Claremont respectively. He calls them postmodernized postliberals. I am more aware of Tanner's work, as mentioned below, and recommend as a good place to start her work on Theories of Culture and what it has to do with locating Christian identity] Christian identity based on shared beliefs is a mirage, she argued. For Tanner, Christian identity derived from shared questions and discussion topics, not shared beliefs. [which is why her work is a good foundation for more liberal emergent Christians, and good parallel read with Brian McLaren's and Leonard Sweet's]. On Clayton, D. writes: Integration was 'the birthright of liberal Christianity.' By its nature and history, Clayton observed, liberalism worked constantly to integrate the best human knowledge with the Christian tradition. "It takes some courage; it takes prohetic voice; it takes a hatred of the trivial; it takes a willingness to be hard nosed; it takes a constant refusal to become self-absorbed." ..Liberal theology is a great tradition and a high calling, he exhorted; what it lacks is convictional advocates. "God knows, in the present political climate liberal Christians need passion--earth-shaking passion--when speaking of our faith." [RR: and beyond speaking, incarnating it in new communities responsive to new culture].
And then Dorrien writes his powerful conclusion in a final two pages. You need to buy the book. I wish I had the stamina typing right now to present them. I will do an unjust excerpt.
"A hundred years after the liberals gained control of Harvard and effectively began the tradition of American liberal theology, it faced an ambiguous future. On the one hand, the pluralization of theology, the beginning of a religion-science dialogue, and the mere beginnings of multiperspectival interreligious thinking made the twenty-first century the most interesting time in history to pursue theology. [RR: since his book ends with the year 2005, I think he actually meant two hundred years after that 1805 event, but maybe he was talking about 1905 and the 20th century, a little confusing. He goes on to summarize his book in a few paragraphs]
"Throughout its history, liberal theology has broken beyond its academic base only when it speaks with spiritual conviction about God's holy and gracious presence, the way of Christ, and the transformative mission of Christianity. That is the language that sustained the liberal movement as a whole. The civil rights movement thrived on its gospel-centered belief in the sacredness of personality and the divine good, and the social-gospel movement would have been nothing without it. Something like it needs to be recovered today if liberal theology is to flourish as a public and spiritual force; something like a gospel-centered theology of personal spirit. Instead of defining the spiritual in terms of the personal and moral, one might define the personal and moral in terms of spiritual aliveness, fashioning a scripturally grounded theology of universal spirit and love. [RR: He goes on to advocate for the "ultimate concept of spirit". I resonate with this and my own constructive paper in seminary was on my understanding of The Holy Spirit and the kingdom of God].
His credo:
"God is creative and personal Spirit, motivated by love. In Jesus the Spirit of God dwelt fully. Love divine is the final meaning of Spirit. Evil is the lack and nihilating negation of the flourishing of life. Eternity is the life of divine love. Theology begins with the experience of the Holy, moves to the critique of idolatry, and presses to the prophetic demand for justice and the good." That, he says, is one way to advance interreligious tought and the critique of oppression from a Christian center. "
I hope you can see why we brought him as one of the keynoters to Revival in NYC. The UU Christian Fellowship is one of the many good progressive Christian homes for such a credo, and for the multiple versions of liberal theology undergoing a renaissance as described in his book. Our Revivals and other major events are part of incarnating these theologies. As is our support of people in their own churches into becoming incarnational homes for the theologies. And I hope our small groups gathered under the umbrella of the UUCF but reaching out beyond UUism are ways to incarnate these as well. What I try to do in my own church-planting and through this blog is part of the same incarnational mission to put finite failing and flawed flesh on such a Spirit of God.
But, as this piece from Dorrien makes clear, the vitality and just plain truth of the matter for Christian faith that these progressive theologians have captured should be a compelling force for creation of new communities and audiences where the theologies can be deepened and spread. Which is the focus of the mission of this blog itself. I often bring progessives up to task for failure to engage with the post-evangelical Evangelicals and what they have to teach us, and as this series of posts and Dorrien's book make clear there is a lot that Evangelicals have to encounter and learn from the progressive theologians. They may be doing all right now ignoring this strand of liberal/liberation/progressive theology, and locating their own in the postmodern and postliberal theologies of Stanley Grenz, Stanley Hauerwas, George Lindbeck, Frei, Niehaus, and successors, as liberals themselves can learn from engaging with these too, but if they look at the theologians in Dorrien's book and treat them as lepers, they will be cutting off God's oxygen to their brain and forgetting Jesus' life lessons.
D: American theologians of the later twentieth century demonstrated the continuing vitality of the liberal tradition by fashioning complex and illuminating theologies that responded to secularism, new social movements, postmodernity, and a dramatically expanded awareness of religious and cultural pluralism. Yet they never felt that they were part of a renaissance...The secularizing tidal wave and social revolutions of the succedding generation fell hard on liberal schools, just as they flattened a regnant neo-orthodoxy. Personalism withered from lack of conviction and advocacy; evangelical liberalism was forsaken as well; even Niebuhr and Tillich were often forgotten; only the Whiteheadians sustained the conviction, productivity and ambition of a movement. [RR: Process theology saved my faith, gave me back God language and led to becoming Christian believer, but if your main theology takes a college or graduate degree to comprehend, you are in trouble; some of the most powerful stuff comes from pastors interpreting it and presenting it to general audience, and why it was good that Dorrien's book goes into the work of Borg, Spong, et al even though I haven't mentioned them in these posts.]
D: Theologian John H.S. Kerr explained that liberal theology was a strategy to keep increasingly secular modernists in the church, but by the late 1970s they were gone. Thus liberal theology lost its institutional mission. 'Those outside the Chruches were no longer interested in the liberal theologian's desire to qualify rather than replace what the Churches officially said in the realm of pure theology." The shades of difference between 'above' and 'below' Christologies meant nothing to secular types that associated religion with their grandparents. Liberal theology still appealed to some individuals, Kent allowed, but it no longer had important work to do for the church....[Dorrien then goes on to talk about the way the more conservative theologians of the past decades challenged liberal theologies as giving away too much faith, and counters with a good critique of their dismissals]...Contrary to Kent, the ecclesial relevance of liberal theology did not vanish with the church membership losses of the post-1960s generation. The mainline Protestant and progressive Catholic ectors of American Christianity claimed tens of millions of members; church study groups turned several theological liberals into best-selling authors; and intense ecclesiastical debates over gay and lesbian rights, war, and feminism made theological discourse unavoidable even for religious communities predisposed to avoid it.
D: American liberal theology began as a pastoral enterprise, and in its heyday it was led by academics at seminaries and divinity schools that maintained vital ties with affilliated religious communities. But its critics were right that liberal theology became more narrowly academic in the later twentieth century and that its academic versions did not win much of a following within the general population or among academics in other disciplines. [RR: because the culture-bound churches of the 60s-90s couldn't plant church planting churches in the new cultures, and I wonder to what degree liberal theology and its loss of gospel-centered focus and imperatives of melding liberal understandings of the Great Commandment and Great Commission had to do with creating the very environment which shrunk its audience and (seemed to) marginalize itself?]
D: [moving through the good work of Borg, etc. back to the academy with concluding remarks pointing the way to the future through the new postliberalism and renewed/new evangelism and understandings of Christian faith and culture as presented in the works of younger theologians like Kathryn Tanner and Philip Clayton, Chicago and Claremont respectively. He calls them postmodernized postliberals. I am more aware of Tanner's work, as mentioned below, and recommend as a good place to start her work on Theories of Culture and what it has to do with locating Christian identity] Christian identity based on shared beliefs is a mirage, she argued. For Tanner, Christian identity derived from shared questions and discussion topics, not shared beliefs. [which is why her work is a good foundation for more liberal emergent Christians, and good parallel read with Brian McLaren's and Leonard Sweet's]. On Clayton, D. writes: Integration was 'the birthright of liberal Christianity.' By its nature and history, Clayton observed, liberalism worked constantly to integrate the best human knowledge with the Christian tradition. "It takes some courage; it takes prohetic voice; it takes a hatred of the trivial; it takes a willingness to be hard nosed; it takes a constant refusal to become self-absorbed." ..Liberal theology is a great tradition and a high calling, he exhorted; what it lacks is convictional advocates. "God knows, in the present political climate liberal Christians need passion--earth-shaking passion--when speaking of our faith." [RR: and beyond speaking, incarnating it in new communities responsive to new culture].
And then Dorrien writes his powerful conclusion in a final two pages. You need to buy the book. I wish I had the stamina typing right now to present them. I will do an unjust excerpt.
"A hundred years after the liberals gained control of Harvard and effectively began the tradition of American liberal theology, it faced an ambiguous future. On the one hand, the pluralization of theology, the beginning of a religion-science dialogue, and the mere beginnings of multiperspectival interreligious thinking made the twenty-first century the most interesting time in history to pursue theology. [RR: since his book ends with the year 2005, I think he actually meant two hundred years after that 1805 event, but maybe he was talking about 1905 and the 20th century, a little confusing. He goes on to summarize his book in a few paragraphs]
"Throughout its history, liberal theology has broken beyond its academic base only when it speaks with spiritual conviction about God's holy and gracious presence, the way of Christ, and the transformative mission of Christianity. That is the language that sustained the liberal movement as a whole. The civil rights movement thrived on its gospel-centered belief in the sacredness of personality and the divine good, and the social-gospel movement would have been nothing without it. Something like it needs to be recovered today if liberal theology is to flourish as a public and spiritual force; something like a gospel-centered theology of personal spirit. Instead of defining the spiritual in terms of the personal and moral, one might define the personal and moral in terms of spiritual aliveness, fashioning a scripturally grounded theology of universal spirit and love. [RR: He goes on to advocate for the "ultimate concept of spirit". I resonate with this and my own constructive paper in seminary was on my understanding of The Holy Spirit and the kingdom of God].
His credo:
"God is creative and personal Spirit, motivated by love. In Jesus the Spirit of God dwelt fully. Love divine is the final meaning of Spirit. Evil is the lack and nihilating negation of the flourishing of life. Eternity is the life of divine love. Theology begins with the experience of the Holy, moves to the critique of idolatry, and presses to the prophetic demand for justice and the good." That, he says, is one way to advance interreligious tought and the critique of oppression from a Christian center. "
I hope you can see why we brought him as one of the keynoters to Revival in NYC. The UU Christian Fellowship is one of the many good progressive Christian homes for such a credo, and for the multiple versions of liberal theology undergoing a renaissance as described in his book. Our Revivals and other major events are part of incarnating these theologies. As is our support of people in their own churches into becoming incarnational homes for the theologies. And I hope our small groups gathered under the umbrella of the UUCF but reaching out beyond UUism are ways to incarnate these as well. What I try to do in my own church-planting and through this blog is part of the same incarnational mission to put finite failing and flawed flesh on such a Spirit of God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)