Deafened in Winnipeg

The hardcore show is over, I'm slightly deafened, my amp has never been that loud, period. People were head-banging and moshing like crazy. In other words, we had a lot of fun.

Interesting: the band that opened the night was the only worship band that was playing. They were extremely talented, passionate, humble (from our talks and prayer in the "Band Members Only" room earlier), Jesus-focussed -- and largely ignored by the crowd. The dance area in front of the stage was empty.

Don't get me wrong, a lot of people were singing, but when I looked around (from the front row) a lot of people were sitting down, and some were having conversations and ignoring the worship band, who were rockin' the house at the time.

The same crowd that enthusiastically danced, moshed, and head-banged ten minutes later when our hardcore band played. The dance floor at the front was packed. Yes, it's a Christian hardcore band, and all the band members are part of the worship community of our church, but still, the difference in interest and participation level was extremely obvious.

Rockin' worship = ho hum. Hardcore = maximum participation and excitement. The times, they are a-changin'...

30 Hour Famine

I'm playing bass tonight at the 30 Hour Famine here in Winnipeg -- with a hardcore band called "a place tomorrow". They don't have a regular bassist yet (the band is mostly recent grade 12 grads and one guy in his twenties), so I'm filling in.

They don't seem to mind having an old fart on bass, and I certainly enjoy playing with them -- I cut my musical teeth on Led Zepplin-style blues, heavy metal, and punk, so it's like going back to my roots. Shocked the snot out of my fourteen-year-old daughter -- "Dad, when did YOU learn how to play hardcore?".

Now I feel like that dad in the Toyota commercial who cranks his daughter's CD in the stereo. Minus the tie. And the Toyota...

Blurred Vision

Yesterday, I wrote about friends that have talked about having their dreams die, and not being sure if they even want to dream again. Since then, I've been alerted to another facet of the conversation: what is "vision" supposed to be, and what's the focus of the vision.

Huge topic -- a few quick thoughts:

• "When the people can't see what God is doing, they run into each other." (that famous verse in Proverbs, but as The Message translates it). The bigger question, in my mind: Is it the job of leadership to provide "what God is saying" so people all run in the same direction, or is it the job of leadership to help people discover what God is saying to them individually, and equipping/encouraging them to run with it, even if it's in 20 different directions?
  
  
• Vision should be personal more than corporate; being a "cog in a ministry machine" may give some people a sense of belonging in the short term, but it doesn't produce long-term community that is anything but project-centred (see August 15 blog re: centred sets). Although, to be fair, many who start as "cogs" do grow spiritually, but the machinery should not delude itself into thinking it was responsible.
  
  
• "Rallying the troops" to the vision statement of the church is really more about a pep rally than reminding people of what God has called them to -- it often comes across more as reminding people of what that particular church wants them to do. And often it can degenerate into manipulation and performance-orientation: "You're not committed to the vision God gave us for this church." (Translation: Get with the program or find another church.)
  
  
• Having to have a "vision" to get people to rally around puts way too much pressure on the leader to come up with something, and if that leader isn't "successful" in rallying people to their vision, they can (out of fear and guilt) become unintentionally manipulative as they try to get people "plugged in" or "hold them accountable". Or they beat themselves up (and other leaders may participate in beating them up as well): "I guess I'm just not cut out for leadership" -- and another Godly person with leadership gifting drops out because the false expectations deceive them into thinking they're "not doing it right".
  
  
• Leadership should be equipping people to hear what God is saying to the individual, not trying to get people to "sign on" to the leaders' vision. "Shared vision" is only honest and vital if it's numerous individuals discovering they have similar personal visions/dreams and choosing to walk together. This will be a "community of faith".

Here's a question that I'm still trying to nail down: Is it possible for a church leader (pastor), with the following goals in ministry, to be "in the system but not of the system"?

1. To equip inidividuals in the church to hear God's voice for themselves
   
   
2. To assume that God will speak individual vision/dreams to individuals, and it's okay (even desirable) that they don't match the vision/dreams of the leader
   
   
3. To actively choose to not be the up-front guru who builds the ministry around their own "giftedness and passion" (or ego & personal charisma/ability to manipulate?)
   
   
4. To have "leadership gatherings" where the first item is always praying for each other and building the community, and "planning" takes second (or third) place if there's any time left after praying for each other and caring for each other
   
   
5. To honestly "give it away" to those around him/her, hoping to see others thrive in the use of their gifts, and
   
   
6. To invest a good chunk of their personal time to "hanging out" with no other agenda than to be in community (versus having "coffee" with someone when the leader has an agenda item that is the real reason behind the personal contact)
   
   
7. Suggestions? I'd really like to brainstorm this thing as much as possible.

These are still half-baked and needing more reflection and refining. As George Mercado used to say "help me out".

Light The Fire Again

Len Hjalmarsson has some great insights into what God is teaching him through living in the midst of the current fires that are wreaking havoc on Kelowna BC. There are times where God really challenges us re: where our security and confidence is based.

Recently, I've been reading a lot of blogging friends, and having "analog" conversations (going out for coffee) with others, and there is a common theme showing up: a lot of dreamers have had the dreams kicked out of them, and many are too tired or beaten up or whatever to even dare to dream again -- or even want to dream again.

I was talking to the pastor at the church I attend on Sunday, and he asked at one point "do you have a vision for Winnipeg?". I honestly had to say to him "Let me get back to you on that." I hadn't thought of it in those terms for a long time. How many of my dreams -- for ministry, for the Kingdom, for the church, etc. -- have died along the way?

So let's put the "Comments" section of this entry to good use. What dreams have died for you? Do you have new dreams? Do you even want to dare to dream anymore? Or are dreams passe?

To quote a song lyric from a friend of mine, "There must be more!"

Can't Believe I Did This...

I actually signed up for an "IndieAllies" mailing list. I'm normally one who is extremely skeptical of media-marketing ideas, which this IndieAllies thing totally sounds like. A gathering of the new illuminati -- the latte-sipping pomposity of those who re-arrange the deckchairs on the Titanic and really think they're doing something new and creative because they mock mega-churches and don't see that they're acting in exactly the same way, except now THEY'RE in charge.

I knew it wouldn't take long before the pomo crowd developed it's own version of "WWJD" merchandise, marketing, conferences (with big honorariums for the new guru's), thus sealing their own fate of using the exact same models and motives as the very churches they sneer at. From there, it's a quick coast into irrelevance and the busyness of going to pomo gatherings, and not having any time left over to do the things they accuse the "institutional" church of not doing.

See? REALLY skeptical. Even downright cynical. Maybe it's equally a case of "hope deferred making the heart sick"? I've gone to a few meetings with other pomo explorers, and more than once, the agenda of the meeting boiled down to:

1. pontificating on the "latest" ideas and trends in order to demonstrate who the "true" pomo's really were, so that,
   
2. the "pecking order" of who would be deferred to as the Head Pomo can be established (all the while protesting that there are no "leaders")
   

Still, I'm going to go, perhaps a little cautiously, but just in case there's some people there with a Kingdom mindset and humble heart, I don't want to miss the chance to meet them.

I'll let you know how it goes. I'd actually be really excited to be proved completely wrong about these gatherings -- there's got to be people somewhere who want to restructure in order to see God's glory revealed in His people, and not just to create another self-congratulatory and insulated Christian subculture.

New Articles in Drydock

I've linked three new articles in the Drydock today. "Detoxing From Church" is one that's been in the works for a few months now, and is finally available -- although it may expand or even get a "Part 2" eventually; it's a big topic.

I'm replacing some of the my ancient articles that were originally linked here with these new ones.

Postmodern Leadership Part 1 & Postmodern Leadership Part 2 are actually research papers that I did for a Providence Seminary class earlier this summer on "Postmodern Use of the Pastoral Epistles". I was supposed to write two sermons as one of the assignments, but never having taken (or been interested in taking) Homiletics, I requested to write two articles instead, and these are they. The question of how leaders should function (or if they should even exist) in a postmodern ministry model is a huge one, and I'm only scratching the surface so far, but at least it's a start.

Enjoy! Any feedback on these three articles can be posted in the "Comments" tag for this post.

Generational Angst... Again!

Did you know that they (whoever "they" are and whyever "their" opinion is considered so dang important) have identified a new "generational grouping" in our North American society?

No, not a new nickname, stereotype or label for the emerging generations, but a further re-definition and re-alignment of existing generations (gasp!). It's called "Generation Jones" and apparently I'm one of them.



This is such a shock. For so long, I've thought I was Gen X. Now, I've got to completely re-learn my true origins of identity, who I've been victimized by and therefore should be upset at, and what my goals/dreams of life have been for the past twenty years or so. I am experiencing existential angst.

Y'all will have to forgive me if it takes a wee bit of time to completely make the shift from my old identity as an "X'er" to my newly-discovered true identity as a "Jones-er".

(Maybe my identity is found somewhere else, other than reactionary "notice me" marketing demographics invented by the media & corporations who want to sell me stuff. Any suggestions?)

Note: This is an existential angst-driven rant -- for my actual thoughts on generational divisions, check out "Clique Maintenance Part 1" in the "Articles At Sea" section.

Quotables

Berkeley Breathed, creator of the Greatest Comic Strip Ever (Bloom County), once said "What seems funny to a sleep-deprived brain at 4 a.m. reads as merely hallucinogenic when laid down on the sober newsprint of a newpaper."

I'll let you decide for yourselves if my recounting of the saga of getting P.T.'s new Great Dane "Apollo: 'Roid-dog of the Cosmos" (see yesterday's blog) fits into that category.

Todd Hunter wrote on his site a while back:

"I am not so much down on the church - and if I catch myself in such a state I severely rebuke myself - as I am "up" on figuring out what it means to be the people of God: from creation, to Israel, to the church, to the renewed cosmos. What is God's ultimate intention in and through this Story?"

While a discussion on how to live in biblical and relevant communities of faith in a postmodern world will inevitably require a serious investigation of how to (re)structure what "church" is and can be (remember, we only de-construct in order to re-construct), I have to look over my own writings (and my interaction with the writings of other blogging friends), and wonder if at times I have gotten so caught up in the fervor of "proving" points of view that I've inadvertantly forgotten that, when all is said and done, this is God's thing -- not ours.

I have to stop every now and then, give my head a shake, pour myself some more Tim Horton's double-double coffee, and remind myself that Jesus is FAR more concerned, more interested, and more proactive than I could ever hope to be, in seeing His Bride healthy and functional. And He is far more in love with the Bride than many of us "anarchists" have been -- and we need to re-capture that love for the Bride. Any re-constructing based on a love of the Bride will look a lot different than creating something out of a reaction against "church as we've known it".

It might even look like the church Jesus had in mind when He said "upon this rock I will build My church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it."

Road Trips Rock

Sorry for the abrupt lack of blogs these past couple of days. My best friend from high school (P.T. "Dang-straights-I'm-Irish!") and I just went on a "road trip of self-discovery and explored ideals across the scenic Canadian Prairies and ending at the breath-taking majesty of the Rocky Mountains".

Well, not exactly. We drove non-stop from Winnipeg to Calgary, slept for five hours, and then drove non-stop from Calgary to Winnipeg -- all to pick up P.T.'s new pet: a two year old Great Dane the size of an adult velociraptor. With the jaws to match.

The dog's name is "Apollo", which is kinda fitting; other possible monikers might have been "Terminator 4: The Rise of the Canines", "Jurrasic Dog", or "MegaMutt & the Masters of the Litterbox". Saints be praised, Apollo is potty-trained. Ever heard the expression "pee like a racehorse"? HAH! Horses have nothing on Great Danes.

What do you do when you drive back and forth across the Prairies non-stop (with not much sleep)? You listen to all of your favourite CD's (twice), and you have great talks about life, God, church, non-church, and why classic rock is so much better than most of the drivel on the radio these days with the exception of Creed, Nickelback & P.O.D. (that'll be a rant for another time).

My buddy & I don't agree on everything that we hope/pray for the future of the church in North America, and I love the diversity of our discussions and our friendship, but one thing seemed abundantly clear after two days of driving, great tunes, and the fruit of a friendship that goes back 23 years: the "problem" with church structure, de-structure, re-structure, non-structure, etc. is, simply, people. Until people change at a heart level, it won't matter a hill of beans what structure or de-structure they end up with. Churches aren't the problem. House churches aren't the solution. It's people.

People are the problem. People are the solution. We probably don't need "Revivalists" or "Reformers" as much as we need Repenters. All of us. Unless we get really seriously, desperately, deliberately committed to letting God have His way with us, first as individuals, then as groups, and even as "institutions" -- there will be nothing new under the sun. If we stop carping about the structures and people who "don't get it", and start focussing on our own spiritual walk, and encouraging others, then we'll see the Holy Spirit produce true fruit -- and structure won't matter anymore.

That's what seems obvious to a caffiene-addled, sleep-deprived brain after 27 hours of driving and five hours of sleep. I may be more poetic and profound after I take care of my immediate physical needs (potty break to deal with all that coffee and then some serious Z's), but then again...

Centered Sets

This is the great thing about blogging and surfing: I wouldn't have thought to post what I'm about to, except for discussions I've been involved in on other blogs.

I searched the VineyardUSA site for this material, and it wasn't there, so I hope I haven't broken any copyright laws by posting this here...

A Centered Set Movement

"In 1988 we (the Vineyard) had considered becoming a denomination with delineated boundaries defined by a constitution and by-laws. God had clearly said no. Now, in 1989, John (Wimber) attempted to explain why we had not gone in this direction. He lectured from his training as a sociologist and gave us the philosophical grid and language to understand what we were attempting to do. In the lecture John borrowed from what is called Social Set Theory which seeks to describe the dynamics between individuals in three basic kinds of groups (here called sets).

1. "Fuzzy sets describe groups that have no organizational center. A group of little league parents might perceive themselves as a group in that they have a common interest, but no core values define their existence.
   
   
2. "Centered sets describe groups that have joined together a common center articulated by core values. People in a centered set want to go the same place and generally agree on how they will get there and who will lead them. There is a lot of latitude for collegial disagreement on non-core issues and flexibility in forms.
   
   
3. "Bounded sets describe groups that not only have banded together around a common center, but that have also clearly defined rules about beliefs and practices. The number of people who can get in the group becomes narrower because the parameters are more defined.

"John explained that from the beginning he intended that the Vineyard be a centered set of like-minded churches. There was enough latitude in the system to allow for differences on what were considered to be peripheral doctrines, such as the mode of baptism. Anyone could be a Vineyard who could prescribe to the genetic code articulated earlier.

"John also taught that historically groups couldn't remain in centered sets forever because the rules that determine the insiders and outsiders will eventually have to be defined. His desire, however, was to keep the Vineyard a centered set movement for as long as he could.

"In order to evaluate trends and views emerging in the movement, he generally chose to let them alone until they could be studied biblically and examined for long-term fruit. In describing this philosophy he used the analogy of growing a bush. It is a temptation to trim a bush back too soon before a gardener knows what he has. This means letting the thing go for awhile, thus having to endure a period when the bush looks messy and untrimmed. Then, when the course the branches are taking is clear, that which is unwanted is trimmed back. This allows for more growth in the rest of the plant."

I think the "centered set" idea is (does this even need to be said?) totally applicable to the postmodern, re-structuring, or house church movement. And in the metaphor of the "messy bush" that Wimber alluded to, it's OKAY if it's a little wild and woolly for a while (in some people's eyes, anyway). Change is messy -- whether inside or outside the established church.

Drydock Up & Running

The articles that have been published somewhere on the web are available in the "Articles at Sea" section. I've also created a spot for currently unpublished articles (and some of these I have no intention of publishing other than on this blog), in the "Articles in Drydock" section.

Like most people who write a self-bio for the blog, it was hard to know what to say -- so I just had fun with it. Enjoy "RobbyMac's Journey" for some insight into the twisted baggage of my subconscious -- it may help put some of the blogs and articles in perspective.

CAUTION: The very first "Christian" article I ever wrote is "Praying For You" -- it's from an era of my life where I thought sarcasm was a gift of the Spirit. I only include it here:

1. because it's my very first-est article ever, and
2. to demonstrate that once upon a time I was really really arrogant, ungracious, and judgmentally sarcastic to the extreme, so that
3. you can understand why I'm so against loaded language and denunciation-oriented diatribes today.

I'll probably always have a tendency to word things "strongly" -- I went to the Braveheart school of good manners -- but as the saying goes "You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar."

Except I've never understood why you'd want to catch flies in the first place, other than possibly to hasten their involvement in the "circle of life".

Absolution/Beatings

Since I've let it be known that this blogsite actually exists, it's time to write something more "blog-like" than I've posted here so far.

I was talking to an acquaintance of mine here in Winnipeg a few weeks ago, and he mentioned that whenever he speaks in certain settings, he always "beats up" the people on issues that he thinks are being neglected. His amazement is that they keep asking him back to speak again, and everytime he "beats them up" for not ___________ (fill in the blank, I'm trying to not give his identity away if possible).

I mentioned off-hand that I've often noticed that evangelical Christians seem to enjoy the occassional "tongue-lashing" in a sermon/teaching, although it doesn't seem to do much good beyond allowing people to feel vicariously guilty for a short time -- not that they will change anything as a result of it.

He seemed puzzled by my comment, and I was also aware that I needed to give it some more thought as well. Why DO Christians, who believe in salvation by grace as a gift of God that cannot be earned or merited, seem to enjoy the masochistic guilt that some speakers bring with their "you're not doing enough for God" sermons?

People who otherwise would be repulsed by "legalism", seem to really enjoy the occassional guilt trip. I heard one speaker say "Ask God every 30 minutes to show you all the ways that you're offended Him -- it will revolutionize your Christian life". I walked out, appalled at how little this speaker understood of salvation by grace, or God's Father-heart, but the majority of the people present thought this was a word from God! Leadership even encouraged people to buy the tapes of the message -- "it will change your life".

Yeah, but not for the better. It will just make you convinced that your Heavenly Father is primarily sick and tired of how pathetic you are, and also encourage you to work in your own efforts to improve yourself so that God will not be so disappointed in your performance.

All this gets me wondering why Christians seem to enjoy the "beatings" that some speakers seem more than willing to hand out.

I read something in "Celebration of Discipline" by Richard Foster (can't quote it directly because I accidentally left the book in Hamilton) where he was basically saying that evangelicals are good at teaching on salvation by grace and not of works, but that we tend to have a poor handle on the Catholic understanding of "absolution" -- we don't hear the words "you're forgiven" from someone we trust has the authority to tell us this. Oh, we protest that we understand that we're forgiven, and in faith we receive it, but I think Foster is onto something.

Is it possible that the reason some Christians (and I've experienced this, too) are almost grateful to have some speaker tongue-lash them about how compromised and worldly they are, is because -- deep down -- we feel we deserve some punishment for our sins, and that we're getting off too easy by just claiming the blood of Jesus?

When Jesus tells His disciples that THEY have authority to forgive sins of others (or retain them), does that make us uncomfortable, since WE'RE also disciples? I think we may need to take a second, more thoughtful look at the concept of "absolution" if we're going to see people, including ourselves, truly free of a performance-based Christian walk.

We'll See...

Day two on the blog. Sounds like being on the dole, but the lines you stand in aren't quite as long.

I'm still thinking about whether I really want to do this or not. Aside from my frustration in trying to customize this blogging software to do what I want. They use style sheets which, of course, I can't touch -- but I'm being creative where possible. I DO have a picture posted here, which technically you can't do with e-blogger. Small victories can sometimes be the sweetest.

If I can get this site to allow me to post articles that I've written, then I'll probably keep at this. Or win the lotto649 so I can pay LT for his software and hosting (thanks for the offer, by the way).

For now, here's a quick fix: links to some of the articles that I've written that are currently posted on OTHER websites. That will have to suffice for the present.

Humble Beginnings

First day on the blog. And the two questions foremost in my mind are:

1. What will I end up writing on, day after day?
2. Will anyone read this, even if I do?

Everyone says blogging is so easy a badly-trained monkey could do it.

Right now, I'm feeling evolutionarily challenged...