God Isn't There Anymore

   "A godly man suggested we stop going to church," she told me, "He said God isn't there anymore."  This young wife and mother of two young daughters must have seen the surprise on my face and took it as encouragement to tell me the rest of the story.  It was an interesting story.
  Their local church had recently split down the middle, but Rona Lessfoot and her husband, Nate (not their real names) were determined to take the high road and not take sides, even though they had dear friends on both sides of the controversy.  They continued attending with their friends who were still at the church, but they also were meeting every week in a home group with friends from the other side.  Though there was a measure of awkwardness to this, everyone seemed okay with the arrangement for several weeks, until this couple had an arbitrary encounter with a man they hardly knew but who seemed to have an unusual spirit of discernment and wisdom.  Perhaps because he was from the outside, they felt they could share their recent experience with the demise of their home church and the estrangement among some of their friends.
  After listening intently to their story and asking a few questions, this would-be prophet seemed to have a word from the Lord for them.  "I think you should stop attending that church for awhile; God is not there anymore."  He suggested they withdraw for one month and then see how they felt about it.
  Though they were surprised by the idea, after discussing and praying about it, this young couple decided to try it; they quit attending for a month but continued with the small group in their home.
  That was more than two years ago, and they haven't been back to their old church since. Today, the Lessfoots and their daughters are meeting in the home of some friends who also have kids, and there are two other couples who attend-- and that is an interesting sidebar in itself.
  It seems that their friends with kids have recently experienced a similar situation about one year ago, having been expelled from a new church plant that went sour after a three-man pastoral team broke up when one of the men became overbearing and abusive in a grab for power.
  Not only that, but the two other couples in the group consist of a former church elder and leader, and a former pastor who was ousted by his denomination for obeying clear direction from God that ran contrary to directives from district leadership.  Go figure.
  It seems there is no shortage of church refugees in this neighborhood, but they maintain that their relationships with God and fellowman have never been better.  There seems to be a depth to their discussions and Bible studies that was seldom achieved when they were in the institutional church, and having been through similar tribulations, there is a deep bond that glues them together.  It's really more like family than ever before.
  Nate and Rona and their family are part of a growing movement in the western church world, a widening exodus that is moving from organized church to organic church.  And they say it's a good thing.  In fact, none of the good folks in this house church ever mention anything that they miss about their former life in the institutional church.
  How about that?
  Do you know anyone else who left the church because they felt God told them to?
  

Ben, Mister No Guilt

   "Guilt should not be a part of a believer's experience," asserted Ben with a firmness that made his normally placid dark brown eyes intensify.  He seemed more like a seasoned old sage than the mid-twenties Mosaic* that he was.  His journey out of organized church had not been unusual at all;  he was one of the 90 percent of church youths in America who quit going as soon as they graduate from high school.
   Ben had been raised in a faithful evangelical family, the eldest of three sons of the church worship leaders; his mom and dad had beautiful singing voices and never failed to raise the inspiration level of the congregation every Sunday morning.  Though it was located in a farm community in rural Michigan, the church was unusual in that it was blessed with talent, and not just musically, but in just about every way.  The youth pastor was a teen magnet because of his friendly, goofy antics, and his down-to-earth spirituality, and there was an adventure sports director who organized trips from backpacking to spelunking to paintball and everything in between.  There were even cross-cultural missions to Mexico and beyond.  Being a teenager in this church was a lot of fun.
   After a year of classes at a community college, he became restless, tired of his home in this sleepy place and took off to see the world.  He landed in New York City and rented an apartment with several other guys and found a job at a high-end restaurant where he waited tables and was a valet, parking Porsches and Mercedes every day.
   But the big city environment can swallow people whole, and Ben started to be concerned that he could lose his life or his soul here as the other guys were into things he felt could be harmful for him and he felt himself being drawn in.  At the end of a year he returned home-- and arrived just in time to experience the violent split of his home church.
   Ben's old friend, that popular youth pastor, had been serving as interim after the lead pastor moved away, and even though he had the support of 80 percent of the members, a small faction of his detractors had somehow blocked his hiring as head pastor, and now two-thirds of the constituents were leaving; they had seen him as the champion of an organic movement that now seemed impossible to realize in this newly restrictive setting.
   Ben asked for a Bible study in the home of an older couple whom he respected, because he wanted to ask questions and he knew they were independent thinkers and would not brush him off or just deliver the usual pat answers that young questioners often get.
   "What if there are no rules?" this older couple asked him, and Ben had been at once startled and intrigued by the question.  It seemed that in the church the rules were already established and nobody could question them.  These guys questioned the very existence of the rules!  Incredible.   Ben asked his first question, starting at square one:  "Is there a God?"
   They spent several weeks openly talking about every religious and spiritual thing, and Ben's friends started to come.  Pretty soon there were a dozen and then twenty in this think tank of sorts, and they were taking the lids off the old religious structures with the help of Frank Viola, Donald Miller, Shane Claiborne, and others, and lining it all up with scripture.  Lights came on in Ben's mind and a whole new world of spiritual depth and freedom developed for him.
   After a year of this he decided to venture to a more radical experience and signed up for a year with Youth With a Mission (YWAM) and was soon stationed in a muslim country in Asia, teaching English to university students.  Wow, what a trip, and what a long way from his quiet little Michigan home!  That's a pretty remarkable journey, and all of this before the age of 25.
   At this writing, Ben has not been back to church in a long time.  Instead, on a Sunday afternoon in St. Augustine, Florida, where he now lives, you might find him downtown with his guitar, hanging out with the homeless on the street or in the park, or he might be chilling with some of his new friends and living the life of Christ in the most natural ways that he can think of.  He's taking classes at the community college and making plans to pursue a musical quest for a few years, forming a traveling band with some old friends and letting the creative juices flow and seeing where it takes them.
  Next time you are in St. Augustine, if you have the time, stop in at the Rhett's Restaurant, a jazz piano bar where he works, see how he's doing-- and leave a big tip or some other kind of encouragement.
   Oh, and about the "No Guilt" thing--  Ben would suggest to all followers of Jesus that you really plug in to Romans 8:1, for there is no more condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, so if your local church is continually heaping judgement on you, maybe you should get out of there for a while for your own spiritual well-being.
  One more post script: Last year Ben wrote and recorded a song that speaks to his original question of whether there's a God.  It's called, "Sometimes", and some of the lyrics are, "I know that you're here, right with me, I know that you love me, I know that you care, I know that you're there, by my side, by my side...."
   So there's a true story of a modern day post-modern.  Do you know anybody like Ben?
   
*Mosaic is the label given to the generation of current 16 to 27-year-olds.  See how they feel about Christianity in the book, unChristian, What a New Generation thinks about Christianity, and What to do About it, by David Kinnaman, director of The Barna Group.
Also from Kinnaman, 6 Reasons Young Christians Leave the Church: http://www.barna.org/teens-next-gen-articles/528-six-reasons-young-christians-leave-church
Also see: Frank Viola, Pagan Christianity; Donald Miller, Blue Like Jazz; Shane Claiborne, The Irresistible Revolution.a

The Uncrowded Wilderness

   The wilderness, by its very nature, is not a crowded place.  By definition, it's an "uncultivated, uninhabited, and inhospitable region".

  Subsequent to my exile from organized religion, I have been questioned by curious friends and family members about where I am now.  My short answer, "In the wilderness", was adopted from the late Michael Spencer, AKA: the iMonk, who had been an inadvertent spokesman for the emerging movement.  He often expounded on the "post-evangelical wilderness" where church refugees find themselves upon exodus from the institution.  At first this troubled me when I thought about the children of Israel wandering around in the desert for 40 years; I didn't think I had that much time or energy left to invest in a grueling trek through a virtual wasteland searching for an elusive promised land.

  But what I've discovered is that the wilderness is a very uncrowded place of open spaces and unlimited freedom, and I like that a lot. It's like "home on the range" or something (I call myself a "free range believer").  I recall visions of the open highway across the western United States where I toured with my family years ago on summer sightseeing trips.  My favorite thing about the open range is that it has no fences, so unencumbered by doctrinal and denominational limitations, I could drive - or hike or gallop - in any direction without restrictions.  It's exhilarating!

  But now I'm beginning to notice an increasing number of new travelers on this open road.  In the last few weeks I've heard of perhaps four more families or couples in my neighborhood who have experienced church blow-ups and are suddenly and unexpectedly out in the wilderness.  That's four separate church disasters in the last few weeks.

  I've read many books from various obververs who have claimed that the decline of western evangelicalism is speeding up.*  Now I'm seeing it myself.  Not long ago there seemed to be very few fellow travelers sharing my open road, but now the numbers are increasing, seemingly by the week.  I'm beginning to think this wilderness may become crowded before long.

  And all along through the stages of my exodus I have wondered where I would end up.  If not in another local congregation, then where?  While journeying through phases of anger, grief, disillusionment, detoxing and deconstruction of old paradigms, I've had this underlying curiosity about what would take the place of the old empire.  But I've quit worrying about it.

  Right now I'm enjoying the open road and have decided to embrace it, enjoy it, live life to the full in the middle of it, with the top down, the wind blowing through my hair (yeah!), and my senses keenly taking in the fresh and beautiful scenes that roll by, mile after mile.  I'm not in a rush to get to the promised land, wherever that may be; this wilderness is a welcome change, and it's not an especially "inhospitable region" after all, so I'm not in a hurry to get through it. Stuart Murray calls this exile "transformative, liberating, and envisioning".**  Cool!

  So my blog is changing to better express this journey, starting with the name-change and description you see at the top now; watch for some more modifications coming soon.

  Tally-ho, and away we go, following that Spirit of adventure! (See my earlier blog, "The Holy Spirit of Adventure".)

        See: Michael Spencer at: 

          www.internetmonk.com

* For more about the growing exodus from organized church:       

       -David Kinnaman, Director of The Barna Group, UnChristian- What a New Generation Really Thinks About Christianity, and What to Do About It.

       -Scot McKnight' blog at: www.patheos.com/community/jesuscreed       

       -Gene Edwards, Beyond Radical

       -Reggie McNeal, The Present Future

 **Stuart Murray, The Naked Anabaptist, pp. 80-81. Herald Press, 2010.

The Emerging Identity Part 2

  This is a follow-up to the previous post, so the reader may want to review that one (below) before reading this one.
  Actually, Part 2 was pretty much written for me as a brief comment on Part 1 by my cousin who loaned me Stuart Murray's book, The Naked Anabaptist.  Dave Hollenbeck, says, "I believe our common identity is simple child like faith and love for God... it is so dangerous to try and form a common group of God lovers; we just are not similar enough to fit under one roof."
  His comment summarizes two halves of a broader belief that I've arrived at when I've been pondering the phenomenon of denominationalism and how it affects the identity of the Body of Christ:  The first half is that generally, Christ-followers are to be known for their love for God and for each other; this is the flag that should fly over all of us.  The second is that because of our differences, we will never be able to agree on many of the secondary aspects of our identity - our doctrines, our dogmas, our various convictions and opinions; so there will always be a thousand denominations - or un-denominations, if you will - groups of believers with no organizational trademark.
  Which means that neo-Anabaptism, or any other denomination-like identity, will represent some of us, and maybe a lot of us, but not all of us.  And because of this truth, I believe it might be better for us to attempt to avoid making concrete generalizations about what our common identity will be, outside of our common love for each other and for the Lord.  Or maybe we can make those generalizations, but avoid a label or title or name for our group.  And especially I would like to avoid the committee meetings that are endemic to denominational structures!  (Bake sales are okay, because one comes away with a good taste in his mouth!)
  I am actually relieved at this.  As I observe the grass-roots movement that is emerging in the Christian world today, I do not see a hierarchy or an organization rising to the top to take control or a champion ascending to become its leader.*  Other than a smattering of unassuming spokesmen or authors, there is no organizer emerging, other than the Holy Spirit of Christ.  Thank God!  I am really happy about this and hope it stays this way.
  But I'm also still happy about the general direction that the new Emergents are moving:  away from legalism, toward freedom and mutual respect;  away from militarism, toward non-violence;  away from nationalism, toward a new allegiance to a greater Kingdom;  away from lording-it-over-chain-of-command-style hierarchies, toward humble servanthood regardless of gender and economic status.
  So I'll probably keep making generalizations as I describe this movement, but I'll resist any and every attempt to organize it, institutionalize it or otherwise damn it.
  *What rises to the top in the pond next to my house is scum!  (Oh, relax, it's just a bit of sarcasm.)

The Emerging Identity Part 1

  Who are the emergent Christians?  Is there a common flag that can fly over all of us or most of us?  I've been wondering this for some time.  Having read most of the popular books from most of the leading authors - informal spokesmen for the emerging church, if it were possible - I've seen many labels used to describe this growing group of ragtag radical followers of Christ, from "Post-evangelicals" to "new reformers" to "barbarians" to - from the other side, "liberals" or even "heretics". (Surprise me, why don't you?)
  But what I have been watching for is a common orthodoxy or doctrinal identity.  Like a denominational platform.  Not that I want one.  The whole idea of signing on to a new doctrinal creed is repulsive to me... I mean, I just recently got rid of the old one!  And the new believers are understandably all over the map on their positions, because the new Way is in the process of developing and solidifying as we speak.
  Anyway, I think I may have found it - or it found me, or my cousin's husband found it for me.  Dave gave me a book titled, The Naked Anabaptist, by Stuart Murray, thinking that he saw me in there, I think: the Neo-Anabaptist.
  This just may be the common orthodoxical homeland for many of us, simply because there are so many similarities between the direction of the new reformers and this little-known 500-year-old tradition.  If you are one of the "new" Jesus-followers, you just might see yourself in these core convictions held by most contemporary Anabaptists:
  1. Emphasis on emulating/imitating Christ as a lifestyle, as well as worshipping him.
  2. Jesus-centered doctrine.  Emphasis on the gospels - the life and teachings of Christ - as a filter for interpreting all of the Bible.
  3. Commitment to learning from the experience of movements that have rejected standard assumptions of Christendom and pursued alternative ways of thinking and behaving.
  4. Commitment to exploring ways of being good news to the poor, powerless, and persecuted.
  5. Strong sense of community.  Churches will be places of discipleship and mission, friendship (not just fellowship), mutual accountability, multivoiced worship.  Young and old are valued, leadership is consultative (the group makes decisions together), roles are related to gifts rather than gender, baptism is for believers.
  6. Spirituality and economics are interconnected. Simple living, generous sharing, caring for creation, and working for justice.
  7. Nonviolence. Commitment to finding ways to make peace between individuals, within and among churches, in society, and between nations.
  You probably noticed right away that, as Murray puts it, "these statements say nothing at all about foundational theological subjects... Nor do they pretend to cover every aspect of the subjects they do address, such as Scripture, the church, and mission.  These core convictions are not intended to be comprehensive, to substitute for creeds or statements of faith....  They introduce a way of being followers of Jesus that is unusually holistic."
  So, you saw Shane Claiborne (The Irresistible Revolution) in there, right?  And how about Brian McLaren (A Generous Orthodoxy)?  And I also see my young counterparts, Sam, Ben, Jordon and Ricky in there, along with tens of thousands of new radicals who are leaving the traditional institutions on pilgrimage to something more authentically Christ-ian.
  I think Stuart Murray speaks for many Post-evangelicals when he points out the similarities between certain Anabaptist convictions and the common direction of many radical, authentic Christ-followers of today.

Pacifism, Pure & Simple

  Last night we hosted a peace rally that we named "Jesus, Bombs, and Hot Dogs", and friends came from several towns nearby-- all over the map, you might say-- to take part in the discussion.  The views expressed were "all over the map" as well, which added a delightful element of diversity to the conversation.  I love diversity, and I had a very enjoyable time last night.  One of our primary objectives was the creation of a venue where it would be safe to talk about Christian pacifism-- and even to identify oneself as a pacifist-- without the usual judgement and criticism that is so pervasive in the normal evangelical environment.  We were successful in that, probably for the most part because we had participants who were so magnanimous and respectful toward each other.

  As the host, I was privileged to direct the discussion a bit, though after getting things going, it really didn't need much direction, and many of the essential aspects of Christian pacifism were covered after my brief introduction sharing a bit of the history of pacifism and even my own personal history of being a pacifist since I was a teenager during the Vietnam era.

  Some of the discussion last night left me thinking that sometimes we think too hard about various philosophies, when a really simple view seems much more obvious.  I'm talking about the convoluted logic of complicated theologies of God's love versus God's justice and similar ideas that are used to explain the need for war or a global police force and so on.  

  Now usually I think that simple-minded people, in large numbers, are dangerous because they can be persuaded to sign on to almost any sort of bandwagon or group think, and can become a voting block or a mob that takes things in the wrong direction.  But in the case of Christian pacifism, I think that a very simple view is the most logical, and this is it: Jesus said, "Love your enemies."  Now there are many ways that we, as his followers, may express love for our enemies, but bombing them is not one of those ways.  It's hard for me to imagine that killing our enemies can ever be described as an expression of Christ's love, and Christ's love is what we are supposed to be all about.  Period.  That is really simple.

  So pardon me for being simple-minded at this point, but when the truth is so obvious, it doesn't take a whole lot of explanation.  In fact, it's the circumventing of the obvious truth that takes a boat-load of convoluted haranguing to explain.  Unfortunately, there will always be a Titanic-load of folks who are willing to do that haranguing, because violence and retribution are such strong elements of human nature, and we want to feel that we are justified in blowing up fellow human beings who happen to have the misfortune of being born in foreign lands and being indoctrinated to serve opposing ideologies.

  I feel it myself.  Though the life-long pacifist, I sometimes want to get even with my nemeses.  I take pleasure in standing up to bullies-- more often religious bullies of late-- and being the savior who liberates the oppressed. 

  So there is a great need for tolerance on this, and I've spent most of my life tolerating the overriding militarism of the American evangelical culture, and will certainly have to continue doing so, as Christian pacifism will continue to be a minority view.  It was nice to be in the company of some fellow dissidents last night.

  May God continue to bless not just America, but all nations and all earthly citizens, whether civilian or military, and may God help us, his followers, to get it right-- to increasingly understand and express the essence of Christ and His love to our neighbors-- and our enemies, here and around the world.

7 Stages of the Journey

  Well, it happened again, I saw myself in someone else's research.  Actually, I saw everybody in this work; it's a chart that was adapted from The Critical Journey by Janet Hagberg and Robert Guelich.  This chart displays seven stages of faith and the characteristics of each stage and how we move from each level to the next. 
  Stage One, of course, is Recognition of God- "we believe".
  Stage Two is Discipleship, in which we are learning about God.
  Stage Three is the Productive life, or doing things FOR God.  This is where I invested most of my adult life in service to the Lord, while functioning within the church environment.
  Before the next stage comes the Wall, a phenomenon that I hadn't realized existed until I experienced it.  I had often heard of "the Dark Night of the Soul" and "the Desert Experience" as encounters that believers routinely have, but I had not realized that the Wall is a common reality.  This is the stage where "things just aren't working anymore".  Getting through the Wall often involves discomfort, surrender, healing, awareness, forgiveness, risk, acceptance, love, closeness to God, discernment, melting, molding, solitude & reflection (Whew!)  I've been through much of that in the last two years and have moved on to the later stages:
  Stage Four is the Journey Inward, which is characterized by loss of certainty, life or faith crisis, a search for new direction.  "We need to figure out a new way to do this relationship with God & others."  I'm there now.
  Stage Five is the Journey Outward, learning to live out of a totally different place.  I'm there now too.
  The Final Stage is the Life of Love, "it's all about God"-- characterized by "living in obedience to God, wisdom gained from life's struggles, compassionate living for others, detachment from things and stress, life abandoned."  I am partially here as well.


  This work helped me to gain added perspective on some of the stuff (stages) I've been through, and especially the idea that the Wall is not unique to my experience but is a widespread occurrence-- and getting through it is normal as well.
  I have actually found new peace and enjoyment in some aspects of various levels, namely the moving from "doing to being" and "God being released from the box" of stage four, and the "new sense of God's acceptance" of stage five, and the "detachment from things and stress" of stage six.
  As a footnote, let me at least acknowledge that there are negative aspects of most of these stages, including the misunderstanding of those around us.  For example, stage four can look to outsiders like we are losing our faith, since there may be a loss of certainties at that point.  And stage five can look like you are out of touch with practical concerns, careless about "important" things, and not diligent in certain areas, since our lives are now abandoned to the Lord.
  This was a timely and significant read for me; thanks to these thinkers, Hagberg and Guelich for so aptly speaking for me.  The book, the Critical Journey, is available on Amazon.com or from the author's website: http://www.janethagberg.com/books.htm


Note: The writers number six stages of the journey, but they actually describe seven stages when including the Wall as a stage.  In my experience the Wall was significant enough to be considered a stage of its own.
  

Getting Perspective from Donald Miller

  I just finished reading a book that has renewed my objectivity about life and faith; the title is, Searching For God Knows What, and it was written by Donald Miller (2004).  This book has brought much of my experience into new perspective, and the amazing thing is that the author did this through anecdotes of aliens, junior high, the lifeboat story and a whole lot more. 
  In fact, as I read any book, I jot notes in the front or rear flyleaf so I can find outstanding passages later that I want to remember or reference in some way, and in the table of contents for Chapter 7 of this book, I scribbled, "the realities of life and the universe clearly defined in anecdotes."  I feel like I understand the way things are in the world a lot better now, as Miller sees humanity through the eyes of a visiting alien who, after observing us for a while concludes, "The thing that defines human personalities is that they are constantly comparing themselves to one another."
  Chapter 8, Lifeboat Theory- How to Kill Your Neighbor, revisits the old Values Clarification puzzle of deciding who to throw out of a floundering lifeboat to save the others.  This chapter challenges the assumption that some people have more value than others.
  And so it goes from there, a very insightful read, folks, and delightful at that.  I recommend it highly for anyone who feels they need a new look at the big picture-- what life is all about, in an easy-to-read package.  This one's going on my favorites list for sure!

"Since I Gave Up Hope I Feel A Lot Better"

  Those are some of the lyrics from an old Steve Taylor song.  I don't remember the rest of the words, or even the theme of the song, but that one line came to mind as I thought about the fact that I had recently-- since my last blog entry-- tendered my membership withdrawal letter to the local church and denomination in which I had been embedded all my life.  It was a nine-page letter, because there were some things I felt needed to be said, so I said them.  And I felt a lot better.
  By the way, The Pew Research Center, from a survey they conducted of evangelical leaders last October at the Lausanne Conference, reports that "82% say evangelicals are losing influence in the United States today."

  The "Gave Up Hope" part of my title, at least in my mind, refers to the extended sabbatical I've been taking since my exit from the church, a break from the futile attempt to change the system from within.  I've realized that there's a lot that I can do to make the personal changes that I need to to engage my secular neighbors, but I can't make anyone else's decisions for them, so I quit trying.  I identify with Jesus when he concedes to the Pharisees that they will not change, they prefer the old wine.

  So, having given up on them, I feel a lot better.
  
  And I think that means that my blog posts will have a more positive air about them from now on.  Having put the institution in my rear view mirror, I'm now going to focus on what's ahead for myself and my fellow revolutionaries.  The Lord is always at work in the world.  God is doing a new thing!  And I'm bent on being right in the middle of it!
  Since I've found new hope, I feel a lot better!

Divergent Personality Types

  Okay, now a famous author agrees with me.  Cool!  Popular author Donald Miller* posted a blog this week exploring the possibilities of personality types driving this whole split in evangelicalism between conservatives and liberals.  I had posted a similar hypothesis on March 15th (see my earlier post "My Ancient Emergent Theory"), because I was wondering what influences determine our beliefs and where we land on the conservative/liberal continuum.

  Miller starts with the question (or is it an assertion?), "Do liberal theologians feel more at home with God?"  Following is a re-posting of some of his blog:

  "I’m in a unique position to have both theologically conservative and theologically liberal friends and I notice that some personalities lean toward conservatism and others toward liberalism. Personalities that need high levels of control tend to be conservative, and personalities seeking higher levels of understanding but less control over others tend to be liberal. Therefore, each personality is developing their theology based on the filter through which they see the world.
 "Conservatives are dutiful followers of God, while Liberals are affectionate followers of God. Conservatives tend to have a fists-up attitude toward the world, while liberals tend to have an arms out attitude toward the world. And what’s more is that liberals tend to have a more free, exploratory relationship with God and with others. One of the things that is comforting about being around a more liberal theologian is they don’t try to control you. You don’t feel shame or guilt when you talk to them.

 "Conservatives can be comforting too in the sense they have solid, black and white definitions for any number of categories about God, and for that matter, they have categories. They are also willing to take stands. People are divided up into categories, too, usually for or against any number of theological positions.

 "Honestly, I find myself drawn more to a conservative theology but a liberal personality. It’s sometimes torture for me to hang out with my conservative friends because they are often trying to figure out who is on their side in some kind of war. My liberal friends can be frustrating because they don’t feel a sense of urgency about anything save justice issues. And of course these are grand generalizations, but they’re based in what I believe to be objective observations of friends.

 "I’ve found myself wondering over the years, though, if my conservative friends and liberal friends haven’t come to their conclusions by reading the Bible, but by how they were raised and the disposition they developed towards the world... many conservative leaders...  are convinced others are out to get them so they go at the world trying to kill their enemies before their enemies kill them. They trust very few people unless those people prove they are submissive, at which time they will fight and even die for their servants. In that way, they are honorable. And yet their relationships are all conditional. They feel so intensely threatened by the world they must prove themselves tough as to intimidate people away who might attack them."
  Thank you, Donald Miller.

   Now on a related bunny trail let me just mention a similar notion that I got from reading Timothy Keller's book, The Prodigal God, (2008) and that idea is that birth order has a bearing on theological position.  The thought was that first-borns tend to be conservatives and younger siblings tend to be liberals.  Hmm.  That is interesting, and I will say that my older sister sure can be critical of me sometimes.

  Just kidding, Carol!  I love you!

I speak for Donald Miller when I say personality type can influence theological stance.

* Donald Miller's best-selling books are, Blue Like Jazz (2003), and A Million Miles in a Thousand Years (2009), and Searching For God Knows What (2004), and others.

The Holy Spirit of Adventure

  My daughter and son-in-law own an adventure travel business in Alaska called Denali Adventure Tours.  I've ordered one of their t-shirts which has their advertising slogan on the back, "Adventure Is Our Middle Name".  It reminds me of a similar motto I have adopted for my life that comes from John 3:8 where Jesus said, "The wind blows wherever it pleases... you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."
  Riding on the wind is an amazingly adventurous thing, but it has its down side: You can't steer.  And that is what increases the sense of adventure even more.  When I was a teenager I had a friend who worked at a shopping center, which can be a pretty boring job, I guess, because when he wanted to add some excitement on a windy day, when he was sent to the parking lot to gather the shopping carts, he would take along a big piece of cardboard-- to use as a sail.  He would climb into a shopping cart at the upwind edge of the parking lot, hold up the cardboard and catch the wind, then go zipping along in utter delight!  That is, until he realized he had no control over where he was going or where he would end up-- and no way to stop!  The wind carried him where it pleased.  Mercy!
  And so it is with those who are born of the Spirit.  In my experience, being carried along by the Wind of the Spirit is both a wonderful and an awful thing.  It's wonderful when you can see where you are heading and you're okay with it.  A few years ago the Wind took me to the other side of the world on a prayer trek to an all Muslim country where I saw some amazing things happen through intercessory prayer.  Great adventure.
  But it's awful when you can see where you are heading and you're not okay with it.  Two years ago, as a church elder and while being carried by the Wind of the Spirit, I was involved in a decision that resulted in a church split despite my best efforts.  The Spirit had clearly told me what I should stand for, and my church leaders told me exactly the opposite.  The Wind not allowing me to steer any other direction, I chose to obey God rather than men.  And I didn't like where I ended up.  At least not at the time.  Now I'm fine with it, because the Wind took me to a place of unexpected and delightful freedom.  Go figure.
  Which reminds me of an interesting facet of this Wind of the Spirit thing, and that is that it can be resisted.  If you never get into the shopping cart you can play it safe and live your life without adventure.  That's what a lot of folks do, you know, they avoid it.  Some even disdain it.  Some mock it as "flakey" or irresponsible.  I mean, can you imagine what would happen if a pastor approached his weekly schedule in this way, only flowing from one task to the next as the Spirit directed him, constantly being diverted or re-directed  like a feather on the wind?  I mean, a guy could lose his job acting like that.  It doesn't look very professional, you know.  Spirit-led maybe, but not professional.
  All right, I'm being a little sarcastic here.  Actually people have lost their jobs, their reputations, and a whole lot more, by following this life-style.  It isn't really very popular and doesn't appear to be the least bit sensible.
  But it sure can be fun, because with those who are borne of the Spirit... well, Denali Adventure Tours speaks for us when they say, adventure is our middle name!
  
  Postscript: The Spirit of Adventure has recently led Kaye and me to sell our house and property of 39 years and venture forth to who-knows-where.  I think there will be many a wonderful aspect about this at some point, but right now it mostly looks... well, not awful, but quite difficult.  This being carried on the Wind can be a lot of hard work!  It's okay though, we are heading straight into more adventure!
  

Coming Evangelical Split

  It seems to me that the uproar over Rob Bell's book, Love Wins, is quieting down now.  There hasn't been so much buzz about it in recent cyberspace activity.  But the underlying realities are not fading, they are growing.  I think there is a movement going on, and it will gain momentum in years to come.

  Jimmy Spencer, Jr. has very accurately assessed this undercurrent in his recent blog, Digging Deeper,The Coming Evangelical Split.  He says the two "sides" will more clearly define themselves in days to come.  Read about it at: 

  http://www.redletterchristians.org/digging-deeper-the-coming-evangelical-split/?

The Baby & the Bathwater

  "Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater" is a common saying that expresses one's concern that those who are questioning or re-adjusting their beliefs may go too far and jettison essential core truths and put their salvation in jeopardy.  It can be rather scary, both to the questioner and especially to his on-looking fellow believers.
  So how does one make sure that, if he does leave the spiritual house, at least he doesn't leave the neighborhood?  If he departs from some of the theological distinctives of his denomination, what constitutes crossing the line into heresy?  Who decides things like this?  Should we rely on our spiritual leaders, or can we decide for ourselves based on our own reading and understanding of the Bible?
  After reading Rob Bell's latest book, Love Wins, I found myself agreeing with him on certain points and not on others.  Some of his thoughts are outside the conventions of mainstream evangelical Christianity in America.  So who decides if he's a heretic?  I went back and reviewed the Apostles' Creed to see about the essentials.  Hmm, no problem there; looks like Bell is still in the theological neighborhood if the Apostles' Creed describes the neighborhood.  

  1. "Sticking to the Bible" isn't always a reliable method of establishing one's beliefs.  There are a thousand denominations out there, and they are all based on solid interpretation of the Word-- albeit, many different interpretations.  

  2. Trusting the Holy Spirit won't work; there are innumerable instances of people hearing exactly opposite revelations from the Holy Spirit, resulting in many a divergent pathway.

  3. How about safety in numbers?  I mean, if we stay within the mainstream of belief are we safe?  Martin Luther didn't think so.  There are beliefs that evolve and devolve, some espoused by individual scholars, some by denominational conferences, and others that just sort of happen to become popular without a champion and who knows how, rather like urban legends that become widely accepted but are not backed by a stitch of truth.  And some are really a stretch.

  As an example, a couple of years ago a friend of mine expressed grave concern that a fellow who was questioning authority within his church was in danger of judgement because he had removed himself from his "spiritual covering".  Even though the doctrine of "covering" was virtually unknown fifty years ago and has only come into widespread acceptance recently, partly through the efforts of ultra-conservative speaker Bill Gothard in the 1980's (the same guy who announced that rock music is of the devil).
  Even more widely accepted is the idea that when human beings die and go to heaven they turn into angels with wings who float on clouds and play harps.  Really.

  Anyway, though I think doctrines are generally arrived at (1.) in community by groups of like-minded people who base their conclusions on their dead-level-best understanding of (2.) the scriptures while seeking revelation from God through (3.) the Holy Spirit, it seems that individual believers often make their judgements on who's a heretic by one simple method:
  Anybody who doesn't believe what I believe is a heretic.

You Go, Girl!

  Wow!  I could hardly believe my eyes when I read Michelle (Eagle) Artley's article in the latest issue of the Missionary Church's official publication, The Missionary Church Today.  Her feature, "Calling All Women", encourages women to pursue leadership roles within the church as "catalytic" leaders, catalytic referring to an entrepreneurial trait of those who "start something".  She gives a brief history of the role of women within the church, pointing out that a century ago there were many "ministering sisters" in the denomination, in fact, more than 500 licensed between 1880 and 1960, while today there are only six.  Since 1960, there seems to have been a 50-year descent into conservative legalism regarding the role of women in leadership, which flies in the face of the "respect for women" that Jesus and Paul demonstrated.  Artley points out that "we tend to gravitate toward Paul's instructions to women in dysfunctional churches, such as Corinth or Ephesus, but he regularly spoke of women leading in the church. ... Throughout the Bible women filled such leadership roles as prophet, pastor-teacher, apostle, deacon, judge, and co-laborer."
  Artley challenges the mostly male leadership of the Missionary Church, "men of God, when the Lord saw that is was not good for man to be alone, he did not create a few more men and call it a day.  He created woman to complement man and partner with him."
  There are others who are challenging the current policy of the Missionary Church to limit women, which states that they "cannot be lead pastors or denominational or district executives except in situations of need and for the duration of the need."  Three years ago my brother (a minister in the denomination), and I put our heads together to see what could be done to remove all restrictions on women within the Missionary Church.  A recommendation resulted, originating from his board of elders at New Hope Missionary Church in Lapeer, Michigan, and that recommendation has been slowly crawling its way through the various committees, and is due to be addressed at this year's general conference.  Perhaps the male chauvinism of the denomination will be mitigated soon.
  Michelle Artley speaks for me when she says that "Women are vital to the wholeness of church leadership.  May God soon be able to look on the whole of the Missionary Church and see that it is good."
  In an earlier post I mentioned that one of the problems of trying to be literalists is that we automatically make ourselves hypocrites, because there is absolutely nobody on the planet who can treat all of the scriptures literally.  As an example, I mentioned that Jesus had told his disciples to "sell your possessions and give the money to the poor" (Luke 12:33) but that nobody was taking that literally.  This thing of limiting women in the church is a result of building a doctrine on a literal interpretation of Paul's instructions to troubled  New Testament churches, but again, it makes us hypocrites, because even in the same passages that seem to limit women, there are references to slavery, which we dismiss as not applicable today, since slavery is not permitted in our culture today.
  We could treat the passages on women in the same way as we treat the passages on slavery if we wanted to, but the conversation, when it is addressed at all, is largely conducted by pools of male church leaders, so how likely is that to happen easily and quickly?
  May God help the Missionary Church to shed its hypocrisy and finally treat women with the equality and respect that the Lord intended!
  

My Ancient Emergent Theory

  History repeats itself.  Argyle sweaters look stylish again to young people whose grandparents wore them sixty years ago.  Bellbottoms will certainly experience a second coming-- or is it a third coming?  What goes around comes around again in the next generation.  New church leaders make the same mistakes as their predecessors.  Because of basic human inclinations-- sometimes running along family lines-- we are destined to repeat many of the mistakes of our forefathers.  Our nesting instincts will undermine our missionary instincts, keeping us at home when Jesus said "Go".  Our desire for comfort and security will foil our humanitarian intentions.  And so there will always be a struggle within the Body of Christ, a disparity-- like the Apostle Paul talked about-- between our good intentions and our actual behaviors.

  Yet some of us are more inclined to behave in certain ways than others.  Some are adventurers because we come from a long line of adventurers.  Some are more likely to be stuck in the mud of familiar old traditions, while others seem to have a sort of holy dissatisfaction with the status quo and a knack for shattering the normal-- and breaking other things as well.

  So, I say that what is happening in the church in the Western world is about personality types.  Not only that, I say it has always been about personality types, that every spiritual revolution has fallen out along certain behavioral lines that correspond with types of people.  I'll call them activists and passiv-ists.

  Or you could say they are consumers and producers, or givers and takers, or any number of other labels, but what I am theorizing is that the emergent religious landscape in America is actually a battlefield that is overrun on the one hand with believers who are comfortable with church the way it has been for most of their lifetime, and on the other hand, those who are disillusioned, dissatisfied, and even up-in-arms, over the endemic complacency of their counterparts.

  And, as I was making the point at first, it has always been this way, even as far back as the Exodus.  When God sent Moses to rescue the Israelites out of Egypt, many of them didn't want to be rescued; they were comfortable where they were, and later, when their comforts disappeared, they made it known to Moses in no uncertain terms.  

  Forty years ago, the Jesus People emerged to challenge the accepted norms of religion in America, some of them even forming communes like Koinonia Farms, in an effort to break the traditional mold.  It was a quest for greater authenticity, for true and practical spirituality rather than religion, an attempt at having a relationship with God, not just a form of godliness.

  And so it is now. Only this time it is speeding up, it is gaining critical mass like no other movement since the Protestant Reformation.  It is rocking the religious boat so violently that some are predicting the swamping of the boat, calling America a post-Christian culture and reporting the end of evangelicalism.  

  And the passiv-ists don't like it, so they oppose it and they demonize it.  "Heretics!" they yell, "These house churches are full of false doctrine!"  while they separate themselves more thoroughly from a needy world while going through their order of worship every Sunday morning.

  Okay, maybe I'm being a little rough here.  Maybe even a bit hypocritical, because, even though I see myself as an activist, one who disparages the irrelevance and the arrogance of the typical church in America, there are days when I get weary of the struggle, days when I want to be comfortable and secure as well, so on those days I'm a passiv-ist like my friends.  I also think that age and environment and a whole lot of other influences can affect this thing, and I think it is possible to move from one personality type to the other-- and back again, depending on lots of variables.  I have become less passive (and less patient) as I have matured.  It's a journey, folks.

  Anyway, I don't think that there is much that is new about what is currently emerging in the church to address the changes in the emerging culture.  I think that God will always make sure that there are activists in any place and time, like the Old Testament prophets, who will challenge the complacency and the hypocrisy of the church of the day, and the farther it gets off track, the louder they will cry (and the more unpopular they will become).

  Solomon speaks for me when he says, "What has been done will be done again, there is nothing new under the sun." (Eccles. 1:9)

  By the way, in this post I have ignored certain factors that may be fueling the current revolution and creating the illusion that it is something unlike anything that has happened before, such as epic shifts in the culture, etc.
  Hmm.  Wait a minute.  Maybe it's not about personality types after all, maybe it's about different spiritual gifts.  You know, those with the prophetic gifts are always clashing with those who have the administrative gifts, calling them stick-in-the-muds, and such, because they resist change and all.  Shoot, I'll have to work on that; I guess I'm not quite ready yet to write my book and make a million bucks on this emerging church phenomenon.

  

  

Beyond Radical- a brief book review

  "THERE IS NO SCRIPTURAL GROUND FOR ANYTHING WE PROTESTANTS PRACTICE."

This is how Gene Edwards begins his book, Beyond Radical (1999), after first stating the mission of the book: "THIS IS A CALL TO BREAK WITH THE PRESENT PRACTICE OF CHRISTIANITY IN A WAY MORE RADICAL THAN WAS KNOWN DURING THE PROTESTANT REFORMATION" (Yes, it really is printed in all caps;  I think he's trying to get someone's attention!)  He then lists more than twenty practices that we do that are not scriptural, stating that "We distort history when we try to teach that these practices are all New Testament, existed in the first century, and are 'right out of the Word of God!'"  Here's a partial list:

THE CHURCH BUILDING

PASTORS

THE ORDER OF WORSHIP

THE SERMON

THE PULPIT

THE PEW

THE CHOIR

CHAPTER AND VERSE

SUNDAY SCHOOL

THE SEMINARY

THE BIBLE SCHOOL

INTERDENOMINATIONAL AND PARA-CHURCH ORGANIZATIONS

ALL PROTESTANTS GOING TO CHURCH ON SUNDAY MORNING

THE ALTAR CALL

  Edwards' book pre-dates the similar but more comprehensive and well-known volume by Frank Viola and George Barna, Pagan Christianity.   Edwards is more famous for his other works, A Tale of Three Kings, and The Divine Romance, among others.  He and Viola have been part of the house church movement for several decades.  By the way, the modern house church movement dates back to the early 1800's, and only lately has experienced an acceleration in growth, I believe, in response to the fast-growing exodus of about one million believers in North America who are leaving the institutional church every year, and also in response to emerging changes in Western culture.  One of those major changes is the growing quest for authenticity.  The list above should explain the need for that.

Re-constructing the Brownies

  I just finished reading a wonderful re-constructive book by Reggie McNeal titled, The Present Future, Six Tough Questions for the Church (2003).  I found a bit of hope in this book, because McNeal lists many possible strategies that could help the church adapt to the changing culture.
  But first he assures us that "...it's later than you think.  The missional renewal of the North American church is essential to its future.  I am convinced that most expressions of the institutional church in America will not survive the emerging world.  If that sounds threatening to you, then you may be more in love with the church than you are with Jesus.  You need to take this up with him."
  He continues, "I believe Jesus is the hope of the world.  I believe God has called out a people to make sure the world knows this.  These people are the church.  Jesus has promised that hell will not be able to stand against it.
  "I just wish hell were the problem."


  Here are the six New Realities that McNeal cites:
1. The Collapse of the Church Culture
2. The Shift from Church Growth to Kingdom Growth
3. A New Reformation: Releasing God's People
4. The Return to Spiritual Formation
5. The Shift from Planning to Preparation
6. The Rise of Apostolic Leadership
  In his chapter on Releasing God's People the author beautifully describes the postmodern world and the New Reformation that is engaging the emerging realities in this world.    McNeal says, "The first Reformation was about freeing the church.  The new Reformation is about freeing God's people from the church (the institution)." 
  I'm ready for that.  I think I'll help with that.  I think that's what my blog is for.
The Present Future is a keeper; I think I'll be referencing it a lot, because sure enough, Reggie McNeal speaks for me.

The 10% Tithe = 100% Fleecing

  All right, first my disclaimer: Don't get me wrong, I believe Christians should be the most generous people in the world, and they usually are (except when they are tipping the restaurant waiter after their Sunday dinner).  The poor are fed, hospitals built, orphans rescued all around the world, out of the generosity of Christians and non-Christians alike.  But the bilking of believers through the teaching of the Old Testament ten percent tithe is just wrong.  No, it's more than wrong-- it's dishonest, it's, it's super-wrong.

  There is no evidence that New Testament believers were tithing.  Oh, they were giving all right, giving to take care of each other's needs and the needs of the poor, and occasionally supporting their missionaries like Paul and Timothy.  But nowhere in the Scriptures is there any indication that any of the believers after Pentecost were giving ten percent to the church, nor were their leaders telling them to.  Their charitable behaviors were as far from the Old Testament as they are from the practices of most believers today.

  But then, they didn't have to support the construction and maintenance of church buildings and properties and the salaries of paid staff.  They didn't fund the air conditioning of the local meeting place or buy the buses and vans for the various departments of the ministry.  If preachers stopped teaching the tithe doctrine today, the religious empire would be in big trouble. And I suppose that's one reason why they still do it.  That's why they harangue the faithful into a guilty compulsion to tithe-- in direct disregard for the teachings of the Apostle Paul who said that no one should give out of compulsion (2 Corin.9:7)
  A few years ago the stewardship director of my denomination spoke on tithing at our district camp meeting.  He asked the crowd of 2,000+ attendees-- keeping in mind the fate of Ananias and Sapphira-- to stand up if they were practicing the ten percent tithe.  I looked around as at least 95% of the people stood.
  "Hmm, that's interesting", I thought to myself, "this man's intimidation just helped make liars of about 90% of the folks here" (George Barna says that only about 3% of American Christians tithe).  A few weeks later the same speaker visited my local congregation and again, spoke on tithing.  At one point he asserted, "some folks claim that tithing is not a New Testament principle, but I tell you it is."  Immediately my ears perked up, because I had never heard anyone cite a New Testament proof for tithing.  After a short hesitation he continued, "Malachi 3 says...."    Dang!  I rather lost interest in what he said after that.
  The theme of giving in the New Testament is characterized by freedom (2 Cor. 9:7).  Followers of Christ have complete freedom, with guidance from the Holy Spirit and their own hearts, to give whatever they want to whomever they want, keeping in mind that they are really only managers of all that God has blessed them with-- in reality, they don't own any of it.
  One more thing-- and it's pretty radical.  In one speech, Jesus told his disciples to "sell your possessions and give to the poor." (Luke 12:33)  Now this is a New Testament truth, but I have never heard a pastor preach that this practice should be observed by all believers today.  Perhaps it's because they might be expected to practice what they preach, and where would that leave them?  (This is an example of selective literalism, which I'll post more about later.)
  After Pentecost, the believers remembered the words of Christ, and they were actually doing this.  They were living in common, and when there was a need, selling their belongings and giving the money to the Apostles, who were then using it to take care of everybody in the community.  They were practicing a sort of a sanctified socialism, I would say.


  I view the modern adherence to the ancient tithe as one small ingredient in the greater legalistic recipe that comprises the bulk of the institutional church today-- one of the many little pieces of poop in the mix.  It reveals that many institutionalists today just don't get it.  They don't understand grace-- or, acknowledging that salvation comes through grace, they preach a Christian life that is sustained not by grace but by works-- legalistic compliance with a set of rules.
  The work of Christ is freedom, but very often the work of the established church is legalism, and thus it is anti-Christ.  I'll say more on legalism later.
  

Christianity Devoured by Christendom

  The Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard spoke for me when, about 150 years ago he said, "Christendom has done away with Christianity without quite being aware of it."
  If Christianity is this belief system that has at its core the basic truth of salvation through faith in Jesus, then Christendom is the huge empire of religion that has grown up around it.  The empire includes churches, denominations, the politics of Christianity, the business of Christianity, and everything else that has attached itself to the gospel.
  I also see a similar analogy in the confusing relationship between the Church as the Body of Believers or the Bride of Christ, and the church as the religious institution.  Most Christians, I would say, are thinking of the two as one-and-the-same.  Yet, it is possible for the Body of Christ to function completely outside the institution, and in fact, David Barrett, author of the World Christian Encyclopedia, predicts that the number of Christians who are not associated with any church or denomination will double in the next twenty years.
  One of the deadly by-products of this confusion is that people are born and raised believing that they are saved by the church rather than by faith in Christ.  And this is not an exclusively Catholic phenomenon.
  I said more about this dynamic between the "Church" and the "church" in a previous blog, "Harmful Hierarchy Part 2".

Deconstructing Poop

  Okay, here's the big picture about the two main phases of any revolution:  De-construction and re-construction.  Major components of old regimes are torn down and replaced by new stuff.
  We have been watching it happen in Egypt lately as thousands of dissidents are demonstrating in Tahrir Square, shouting their demands for political reform.  The first response from President Mubarak was to announce that he would not run for re-election at the end of his present term.  This commenced the de-construction of his 30-year old regime.  Then He quickly named a new vice president and cabinet, and so the re-construction had begun (not enough for most of the protesters).
  In the Protestant Reformation (1517) Martin Luther began the attempted de-construction of the reigning religious regime, the Catholic Church, by posting his 95 theses on the door of the Wittenburg Chapel.  Unfortunately, the old regime refused to allow de-construction of its oppressive orthodoxies, and the reformers were forced outside the walls, to re-construct their own institution, the Protestant Church.
  In the present-day movement, many would-be reformers are likewise attempting to bring reforms by challenging the oppressive institutions of the reigning powers that be, and again, like 500 years ago, they are mostly having to move outside the walls.
  Frank Viola and George Barna have published a de-constructionist book, Pagan Christianity, which mainly tears down the old obsolete religious structures.  Viola's next book, Re-imagining Church, is a re-constructionist book that attempts to build a new way, often called the organic church.  He says, "An organic church, as I use the term, is a living, breathing, dynamic, mutually participatory, every-member functioning, Christ-centered, communal expression of the body of Christ that gathers under the Lordship and Headship of Jesus Christ.
  This is what I argue to be the proper habitat for the believer in which to live, move, and have our being. It’s also the reason (I believe) that 1 million Christians leave the institutional form of church per year. And 1700 pastors leave the clergy system per month in the U.S.*   Many of them aren’t leaving Jesus Christ or the body, they are seeking what their spiritual instincts are crying out for."

  This mass exodus that Viola cites, is an example of the de-construction that I've seen taking place all around the western religious world.  And the organic church that he subsequently describes, is a manifestation of the re-constructed forms that are emerging.
  It is fascinating to watch a revolution unfold, and even more exhilarating to be in the middle of the throngs in the city square, if you will, shouting out for freedom and reform (even though there are casualties in the struggle), and then working shoulder to shoulder with the visionaries who help to reconstruct relevant, appropriate reforms.
  Reggie McNeal speaks for me when he says, "A growing number of people are leaving the institutional church for a new reason.... They are leaving the church to preserve their faith."
  Yeah, good stuff, man!

*See: pastorburnout.com

Poop in the Brownies Part 2 or... Protestant Reformation Part 2

  I believe we are in a time of Reformation in the church right now.  It's either a second wave  of the original Protestant Reformation that started in 1517 A.D.-- an attempt to continue and to finish the work of Martin Luther, or it is a brand New Reformation.  Author and church historian, Phyllis Tickle recently observed that there seems to have been a major mid-course correction in the religious system every 500 years, and that-- sure enough, right on time, we are in one right now.  She says, "The only way to understand what is currently happening to us as twenty-first-century Christians in North America is first to understand that about every five hundred years the Church feels compelled to hold a giant rummage sale.  About every five hundred years the empowered structures of institutionalized Christianity, whatever they may be at the time, become an intolerable carapace that must be shattered in order that renewal and new growth may occur."

  I can see many indications that this is happening.  And I see many characteristics of the current movement that seem to be repetitions of earlier movements:

  1.  One of the major similarities is that, because the old system violently resists change, the reformers eventually find themselves ejected from the system, either willingly or not.   Look at the Protestant Reformation as an example.  Though Martin Luther posted his theses in the hopes of introducing needed change to the Catholic Church, he and his fellow reformers could not be accommodated by the church and were subsequently excommunicated.  The new movement could not function within the old system-- the new wine needed a new wineskin.  Yet the old wineskin, the Catholic Church continued on with little change.

  Look even further back to the time of Christ.  The Lord came and created an entirely new Way to replace the old, but the old system didn't cease to exist and continued to persecute His followers, who were dispersed across the known world.

And so it is in this present struggle.  The existing church paradigms will continue, though weakened and irrelevant, into the centuries to come, while rejecting any new reformation.

  2. A second trait of new revolutions is the return to authenticity.  Again, reviewing the Protestant Reformation, we see that Martin Luther's first insubordinate acts against the church were attempts to return the church to accurate interpretations of scripture and to orthodoxies that would be true to God's original plan.  They had gotten way off-track.

And so it is with the current revolution.  Present day reformers have identified inconsistencies and indiscretions in the church today, are confronting the hypocrisies, and are discovering truer, more honest ways of manifesting the original intentions of God.

  3.  Another modern similarity with the old revolutions is the violence that results when very solid institutions are challenged by new reformers. When people question the validity of well-established traditions, there is an inevitable backlash from those in leadership who see their authority being threatened.  It's happened many times in the past, and it's happening now.  Authority attempts to re-assert itself and quash the "rebellion" in no uncertain terms, and things get ugly, and there is abuse and there are casualties.  It's not surprising though, really.  JFK once said that "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable."

  So would-be reformers will do well to count the costs before signing up for a revolution.  Along with thousands of others, I found this to be true in my own recent attempt to bring about change within my own local church and denomination.  After a lifetime of service within those institutions, I did not expect to be shown the door, but it happened.

  It's okay.  My efforts to bring healthy change from within the system were always frustrated by the powers that be.  Not so now.  I am free to glory in the new wine and partner with my fellow revolutionaries on a quest to discover the new Way.  And it's fun!