Hospitality and TV

We had the privilege (again) of spending time with Vern & Lorna Dueck the other night. The Dueck's are good friends of ours, and if anybody qualifies as having the gift of hospitality, it's Vern and Lorna. They are a great source of encouragement and good food.

Lorna is also the Executive Producer of ListenUp TV, as well as a regular columnist for the Globe and Mail, among many other things. She has even incorporated a blog into the ListenUp TV website. (You've been assimilated by the Blog Collective, Lorna!)

I've always been impressed by the Dueck's graciousness and genuine warmth, and if you ever want to have a thought-provoking discussion on Christianity, postmodernism, and the emerging church, you'll find it with the Duecks.

I've also added Pernell Goodyear's blog, entitled "Pernellog", to the Journeymates. Pernell and I had lunch and brews recently, and I'm always fascinated to follow the journey of people who are actually doing something missional. There is plenty of room for theorists and theologians, but as Brother Maynard loves to say, "the best theology isn't found in books, it's in boots". Pernell is a church-planting pastor at The Freeway, which is located in Hamilton. As a practitioner, Pernell has great insights, and he is known for his honest and forthright communication (no spins or hype).

Leadership & Management

Len Hjalmarson emailed me a pithy little quote a week or so ago, that keeps popping back into my thoughts on a regular basis:

"Leadership is about creating change, whereas management is about creating stability."

This brief statement is one of those short little sentences that creates an "a-ha" moment when you stop and think about it.

Many moons ago, when I was a volunteer leader under George Mercado, one of my main areas of responsibility was the worship and creative arts endeavours of our youth group (the group was over 100 teenagers at the time). As my seminary days came to a close, and my internship at the church was ending, I was working proactively to "pass the torch" to one of the older teenagers, so that there wouldn't be a gap in ministry when I went into fulltime pastoral ministry somewhere else (BC, as it turned out).

Peter had been in the band since its inception (almost four years), and was a very humble and deeply spiritual guy, as well as being quite musically gifted and well-liked by pretty much everybody in the youth group.

I told Peter something to the effect of, "This will be your area of leadership. Don't feel any pressure to copy what I've done. Make it your own."

Which is exactly what Peter did, brilliantly. Except...

He started changing things that I'd been doing for four years. And he started making these changes almost immediately. And suddenly, even though I had been totally serious about letting Peter "make it his own", I discovered that I was feeling uneasy, even resentful, about the changes.

I realized that, deep down, I felt threatened by the changes. "What, you mean what I did wasn't good enough?" Or, "Did you think I sucked as a leader? Is that why you're changing stuff so quickly?" NOTE: I never actually said this out loud! It was simply a barbed-wire tornado in my thinking.

Stupid, selfish thoughts, really. God used this moment in my life (I was about 27 or so) to show me a bit more of what "dying to self" meant when it came to releasing younger leaders, and allowing them to flourish in the way that He had gifted them.

The irony is that much of the struggle that I have had over the years in ministry has been precisely what Len's quote articulated. Many ministry positions are called "leadership", but functionally, what they really want is "management" or, to use another business term, "franchise". Change, innovation and creativity are not welcome, unless it's a creative way of breathing new life into old programs. The greatest good is seen in successfully franchising numerous identical expressions of the same thing.

When Christians want to apply a cookie-cutter approach to ministry, it's more like running a Tim Horton's franchise; they all look exactly the same. That doesn't require real leadership; it requires management, stability, and enforcing the status quo.

True leadership is about change. It's about staying fluid and flexible. It honours past traditions but is not beholden to them. It blesses the efforts of managers and franchisers, but is not emasculated by slavery to programs. True leadership is about new wineskins.

Centered Set: The Sequel

Re: yesterday's post on the difference between fuzzy, centered and bounded sets:

I don't believe that the emerging church will ever become a bounded set in the extreme or negative sense. The difference between the emerging church and the Vineyard (which was the example being quoted yesterday), is that the Vineyard is a denomination, and the emerging church, while it encompasses a very broad spectrum of independent and denominational churches and groupings, is not.

Even churches within a denomination, Vineyard or otherwise, need not be "bounded" in a negative and legalistic sense. It's mainly a matter of saying that while we may have no problem hanging out ("fellowship" is the Christian jargon) with others whom we have differences with, there are still some areas that are "don't go there" for those in the denomination. For example, the Vineyard does not believe that speaking in tongues is the initial evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, but that doesn't mean that the Vineyard doesn't enjoy friendships and ministry alongside Pentecostals.

The emerging church is incapable of becoming a bounded set, as (A) there is simply too broad of a spectrum in the conversation, and (B) there is no "head office" (including Emergent Village) that is trying, or even wants, to monolithically enforce a set pattern, doctrinal statement, or missional approach.

What I think we'll see as time goes on, is an overall centered set of the emerging church, comprised of many groups that are more bounded (but not rigid and legalistic) within it. It's actually a healthy thing for these more bounded groups to work out, with fear and trembling (Philippians 2:12), their own distinctives, while remaining in communication and relationship with the wider spectrum of the emerging church, and the Church Universal as well.

Aussies and Centred Sets

There was a PDF made available (for a time) regarding the Australian FORGE group's response to D.A. Carson's Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church, and how they felt it interacted with the Australian emerging church.

The PDF was taken down from numerous blogs later, at the request of those who had originally posted it. There was quite an interesting -- and ultimately fruitful -- trail of comments back and forth over at blog of the Tall Skinny Kiwi. (Depite the original PDF being gone, it's still a great example of how digital disagreements can be processed in a healthy fashion. An excellent bit of dialogue modelling!)

I was able to read the original PDF because I downloaded it first thing this morning, but in deference to the requests to not spread it further, I won't be commenting directly on it. However, it did get me thinking about how difficult it is to stay as a "centered set" movement.

This is an excerpt from Bill Jackson's The Quest for the Radical Middle: A History of the Vineyard, which I think describes what the emerging church is currently grappling with.

Centered 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 (Wimber) explained that from the beginning he intended that the Vineyard be a centered set of like-minded churches... 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, (Wimber) 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."

The term "insiders and outsiders" is a red flag for many in the emerging church, simply because the narrow-minded line-drawing of some denominations has turned a lot of people off.

But it doesn't have to be a negative thing for groups to more clearly define who they are, what they stand for, and their missiological intent; it only gets negative when we assume that our way is the best (or only) way, and that anyone not doing or articulating things as we do, is therefore "not getting it".

If we can go about clarifying what we stand for, without stating it in terms of "we're not them", then the generous ecclesiology that the emerging church now consists of can contine. It's not bad to eventually become more of a bounded set in terms of theology and missiology, as long as the attitude towards other practioners remains that of a centered set.

Pernell & The Freeway

Yesterday I had the privilege of spending a couple of hours with Pernell Goodyear, the planting pastor of The Freeway in Hamilton.

Pernell, who has a great blog here, is a great guy, full of vision and passion (the phrase "tightly-coiled spring" comes to mind), and a quick wit, who appreciates the finer things in life, like Guinness. We even met, appropriately enough, in an Irish pub in downtown Hamilton that reminded me of the King's Head in Winnipeg (ah, nostalgia!).

Our conversation bounced all over the map, but at one point, I asked Pernell what the biggest surprises were as they've led this church plant (for three and a half years), as part of their denomination, the Salvation Army of Canada.

"That it's actually working," was Pernell's immediate response, laughing. "I was ready to have it never grow beyond the few of us meeting in our living room, if that's the way it ended up." The Freeway has grown beyond Pernell's living room, as they put the finishing touches on the Freeway Cafe, right in the midst of downtown Hamilton.

One of the things that has really encouraged Pernell -- and me, once I heard the story -- was that the Salvation Army, as a denomination, is fully supporting this venture. Not just with endorsement, but with actual assistance in the funding of the project. The emphasis on justice and caring for the poor, which the Army has a well-deserved reputation for, is one of the main reasons that Pernell loves being a part of the Army. And the support he has gotten from the denomination to do something that is outside of the normal Army box has been generous and enabled them to focus on the community around them. We need more denominations and churches with this kind of attitude.

As we parted, we had a brief time of connection with a homeless man in the parking lot; somehow, that seemed the most appropriate way for our time to end.

Now, back to preparing for our next adventure. First of all, packing -- hardly a visionary activity in and of itself, but when seen in perspective of our continuing 21-year ministry journey, it takes on greater significance.

More Mallone

George Mallone's Furnace of Renewal: A Vision for the Church, written almost a quarter of a century ago (1981), contains some really interesting gems on the issue of leadership and the Body. George was from a Plymouth Brethren background in Vancouver Canada, although he later pastored a Vineyard in Arlington Texas (USA) until his early promotion to heaven in the mid-90's.

Commenting on Matthew 20:25, George writes:

"People who have spent all their energies getting to the top now let others feel the full weight of their authority. They lord it over others and are concerned to exercise authority over others. They are preoccupied with position. They 'love' their people by keeping an oppressive heel on the back of their necks. Words of affection flowed from men like Idi Amin, the Shah of Iran, and Jim Jones, when all along they really were oppressive potentates.

"These are harsh political and cult examples, but there are milder and more subtle forms within the church. There are those who pressure us to believe that the church is a business corporation with a director at the top. Everyone is to jump when the boss speaks. To others it is the professor who knows Greek and Hebrew and who alone can untangle for us the mysteries of Scripture. To other it is the man or woman who has pastoral gifts of discernment and prophecy, who demand that their disciples be obedient to the vision that they have for them."

While it's interesting that George wrote these words (prophetically?) over 20 years ago, it's also encouraging to realize that there have always been voices calling the Church back to its First Love and to being about the business of discipling people, not running programs.

True, it's sobering that evidently some people weren't listening to voices like George's, but I find it encouraging to realize that those of us who are questioning praxis and ecclesiology in the 21st century are actually standing in very good company with believers of previous generations.

Reformed Epistemology Apologetics & the Emerging Church

The nice folks at Dictionary.com define epistemology as:

e-pis-te-mol-o-gy
n. The branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity.

Simply said, it's a study of "how do we know what we know".

I've always found it somewhat mystifying that so many people are up in arms about the emerging church when it comes to epistemology. They are worried about people making comments about being "comfortable with paradox", "content to live in the tension", and appealing to "mystery".

Why I find this bemusing is simply because even more modern-oriented apologetics (a-pol-o-get-ics n. The branch of theology that is concerned with defending or proving the truth of Christian doctrines) advocated the same things, and also warned about the problems of allowing modernism's Enlightenment-based "rules of engagement" to undermine the mystery of the Christian faith.

Here's an excerpt from Five View on Apologetics, which is part of Zondervan's "Counterpoints" series, from the chapter by Kelly James Clark entitled "Reformed Epistemology Apologetics":

"Suppose you are on a retreat or on the top of a mountain and have a sense of being loved by God or that God created the universe. You begin to believe in God, not because you are persuaded by the argument from design -- you are simply taken with belief in God. You just find yourself believing, what you had heretofore denied, that God exists.

"Now you have come across the writings of David Hume and W.K. Clifford, who insist that you base all of your beliefs on evidence. Hume raises a further point: your belief in an all-loving, omnipotent God is inconsistent with the evil that exists in the world. Given the fact of evil, God cannot exist.

"To meet this demand for evidence, do you become a temporary agnostic and begin perusing the texts of Aquinas, Augustine, and Paley for a good proof of God's existence? Do you give up belief in God because you see Hume's point and can't see how God and evil could be reconciled? Or do you remain steady in your trust of God in spite of the lack of evidence and even in the face of counter-evidence? (emphasis added)

"Since the Enlightenment, there has been a demand to expose all of our beliefs to the searching criticism of reason. If a belief is unsupported by the evidence, it is irrational to believe it. It is the position of Reformed epistemology (likely the position that Calvin held) that belief in God... does not require the support of evidence or argument in order for it to be rational." (emphasis added)

More Thoughts on Leadership

Ah, leadership, the much-abused word of the early 21st century. For too many people, the word "leadership" evokes mental images such as the one on the right.

There is a spiritual gift of leadership, and Paul had leaders appointed in every church that he planted. The question that has been written on here several times before, is: "What does true biblical leadership look like?" (because many people have had bad experiences with unbiblical leadership models in some churches).

I've recently been re-reading George Mallone's Furnace of Renewal: A Vision for the Church, which was a textbook for one of my classes at Bible college many moons ago. In contrasting worldly leadership and servant leadership (a la Matthew 20:25-28), George created the following chart, which I wanted to reproduce here. (Interesting that George wrote this in 1981 -- the issues surrounding true biblical leadership are hardly new.)

Secular Authority "Lords Over" power base gives orders unwilling to fail absolutely necessary drives like a cowboy needs strength to control authoritarian has gold, makes rules seeks advancement expects to be served

Servant Leadership "Servant Among" love/obedience base under orders unafraid to "fail" expendable leads like a shepherd finds strength in submission steward of authority follows golden rule seeks to please Master expects to serve

Anything you'd like to add to either side of this table? Input is always welcome!

Emergent and the Emerging Church

In recent weeks, there appears to have been some confusion in certain circles about the difference between Emergent and the rest of the emerging church.

A number of other bloggers -- most of whom are far more intelligent, wittier, and probably better-looking than I -- have already spoken to this question, but I thought I'd throw in my two cents' worth as well.

This comes from the comments thread from an earlier post, in answer to a question by a visitor going by the name of "exile".

"This is completely off the subject, and has nothing to do with BBQ's or Bob the Builder.

"I was scanning back through your entries and came across your post on June 20th. I have recently begun observing the 'emergent'-thing, and I find it quite fascinating. It speaks of a process, a pursuit if you will. It has been left without defined parameters because it hasn't been so much a movement, but simply a people who are hungry and searching...

"So, do you foresee any repercussions in assigning a 'national coordinator' to a 'movement', when so much of what I have read seems to written as a reaction to 'national movements', by people who do not wish to be 'coordinated', by an outside source?

"I would be interested to hear your take on it..."

"Exile"

Exile,

You've asked a very good question, which is coming up a lot in recent days, since EmergentUS announced Tony Jones as their National Co-ordinator (scroll down to Report from Emergent Summit, Part 1). Originally, it was National "Director" but they changed it later because they felt Co-ordinator better described the position and also sounded less hierarchical. Follow the above link and you can see the progression -- and the reaction.

First off, there is a difference between EmergentUS (and UK), and what has become known as "the emerging church".

EmergentUS and EmergentUK are related organizations that fascilitate conferences, and seek to co-ordinate the wide-ranging discussing about being Christians in a postmodern world. They've always been "organizations" -- however loosely organized they actually were -- but they are not synonymous with the emerging church in general.

They'd be the first to tell you that, as well.

The "emerging church" would encompass people of many differing theological stripes, but who share the same sense of "what used to work, doesn't anymore". They are questioning, researching, blogging and discussing (usually in coffee bars or pubs) what it means to take the timeless message of the Gospel and contextualize it for a postmodern (post-Christian) audience.

For many people "in the conversation", EmergentUS & UK function as resources, sounding boards, and a way to discuss with people from a variety of geographical and theological backgrounds their common concerns.

The reason I'm not personally concerned about any implications stemming from Tony Jones' appointment, is that Emergent has always been an organizational entity, so it's not really changing who/what it is. EmergentUS is simply recognizing that, if they're going to be fascilitating so many things, they'd better at least do a good job at it!

The other reason I'm not overly concerned is that so many in the conversation are already (or still) a part of a denomination, and while some are frustrated, there seems to be a genuine commitment to being "emerging Vineyard", or "emerging Baptist", or "emerging Salvation Army" (these are only a few examples).

For these people, the Emergent resources (websites, books, conferences, etc.) are valuable means of input, but to use the old adage, they're "eating the meat and spitting out the bones" -- they'll take what is helpful to them in their current context, and let the rest slide.

And the house church movement is generally pretty independent (in good and bad ways, depending on the individual house church), and therefore is more likely to treat Emergent as a resource, not as the fountain of infallibility.

Overall, I think Tony Jones' new responsibilities will be good for Emergent as an organization, and where this discussion is helping people understand the difference between Emergent the organization and the Emerging Church, so much the better.

Checking In

Have you ever had a time, when there is a long line-up of impatient people behind you, an irate clerk who wants his money right now, despite the fact that what you've ordered isn't exactly what showed up?

This is what happened to PT, a friend of mine from Winnipeg, when he was visiting us last week. We already had a friend from Los Angeles, Logan, camping out with us, when PT phoned to say he had a job interview in Toronto, and was five minutes from the airport -- could he stay with us? Since PT is practically family, as is our L.A. friend Logan, the answer was, of couse, "yes".

PT went to the Beer Store (which Logan, being an American, found really funny) to pick up a few brews for the weekend, but the aforementioned snarly clerk brought out literally twice as much as PT had ordered, and with the dynamics of a credit card, the snarly clerk, and the impatient line-up of people behind him...

...we ended up with a most impressive amount of Steamwhistle, Boddingtons, and Alexander Keith's India Pale Ale in our refridgerator.

Fortunately, we have a network of friends who enjoy (A) BBQ's, (B) loud and witty discussions about life, church, and alien abductions, and (C) beer. As our American friend Logan, could plainly see, the Canadian stereotypes were firmly in place.

It was great to have friends from out-of-town drop in; it took our minds off from packing... DANG! Must get back to packing!

---

UPDATE

Jo is doing much better since her concussion of last week, although it was several days before the headaches lessened and the dizziness went away. Dancers don't like dizziness -- it interferes with everything! She's still not allowed to see movies in a theatre (apparently the big-screen flashing is not recommended for concussion patients), and her energy level is not usual (she tires easily), but she's still her normally charming and impishly clever self.

Thanks to all who have been praying for her!

Another Day at the Hospital

But this time it wasn't for me.

My eldest daughter Jo managed to become the proud (or rueful) owner of a somewhat serious concussion. She wasn't feeling well in the middle of the night, got up to get some Gravol, but became dizzy and collapsed in the kitchen.

Trouble was, she was standing up when she collapsed, so she pitched forward onto the counter, and smacked her forehead so hard that she knocked herself out.

This sudden onset of unconsciousness, coupled with her forward momentum, allowed her to test the physics theory of "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction" -- which in this case, meant flying backwards and smacking the back of her head on the hardwood floor.

Suffice it to say, Jo spent much of today lying in a hospital bed, with a handy bucket next to her, to accommodate her stomach-emptying rituals every 20 minutes or so. I spent the time sitting beside her, holding her hand at times, agreeing with her that having to fill a specimen bottle was gross, explaining that an ECG was only a problem if you had a hairy chest, and buying her a soft toy dog to cuddle while she slept on and off in the hallway on a guerney for the better part of the day.

She's home now, feeling better somewhat, but will be in constant communication with a bottle of Advil for the next couple of days. The doctors say that she appears to have no serious long-term effects from the concussion, and we're just grateful that she's okay.

I really enjoy spending a whole day with my daughter, but this wasn't exactly what I would normally envision for daddy-and-daughter bonding.

Canada Day!

You know what? This country ain't perfect, but I love being Canadian and I love living in Canada.

And today, one of our favourite American friends, Logan, is flying from Los Angeles to spend a week with us. You can read about part of Logan's legacy in the "Sacred Space" post from a few months ago. We're really looking forward to having him spend a week with us.