Being Robust

Scot McKnight is the Karl A. Olsson Professor in Religious Studies at North Park University. The author of more than ten books and numerous articles and chapters in multi-authored works, McKnight specializes in historical Jesus studies as well as the Gospels and the New Testament. As an authority in Jesus studies, McKnight has been frequently consulted by Fox News, WGN, US News & World Report, Newsweek, TIME, as well as newspapers throughout the United States. [1] McKnight is also an advocate of the New Perspective on Paul.

Is Your Gospel Robust?


Scot McKnight on why our gospel is right, but not right
enough.


A few weeks ago Scot McKnight shared how the gospel we preach is having an adverse impact on the church. Last week at the Spiritual Formation Forum he spoke in greater detail about this problem. He called the standard evangelical gospel, outlined below, “right, but not right enough.”

Essentially, we’ve watered down the good news in a way that has marginalized the church in God’s plan of redemption.


This fact was driven home recently by a friend of mine who teaches at a Christian college. He said a hand in the class went up in the middle of his lecture about the church and culture. The student, in all sincerity, asked, “Do we really need the church?” My friend was struck by the question, and by the fact that the classroom was filled with future church leaders. Something is amiss when even Christian leaders are questioning the necessity of the church. That something, according to McKnight, is the gospel we’ve been preaching.


Scot McKnight summarized the “Standard Gospel Presentation” this way:


God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life.Your problem is that you are sinful; God can’t admit sinners into his presence.Jesus died for you to deal with you “sin-problem.”If you trust in Christ, you can be admitted into God’s presence.


He went on to say that the problems with this popular evangelical gospel include:


1. No one in the New Testament really preaches this gospel.

2. This gospel is about one thing: humans gaining access to God’s presence.

3. This gospel creates an individualist Christian life.

4. This gospel sets the tone for the entire evangelical movement.

5. This gospel leads to spiritual formation being entirely about “me and God.”

6. The evangelical gospel has created a need for evangelical monasteries.

7. The evangelical gospels turns the local church into a volunteer society that is unnecessary.

8. The evangelical gospel is rooted in Theism or Deism, but not the Trinity.


In contrast to this anemic gospel, McKnight believes a more accurate and “robust” gospel presentation would include the following features:


1. A robust gospel cannot be “tractified.”

2. God made you as an eikon (Greek for “image”) to relate in love to God, to self, to others, and to the world.

3. The “fall” cracked the eikon in all for directions.

4. Bible readers cannot skip from Genesis 3 to Romans 3.

5. Genesis 4-11 reveals the “problem” of sin: the climax is a society of eikons trying to build their way to God.

6. Genesis 12 begins to restore the eikon by a covenantal commitment and forming the family of faith. The rest of the bible is about this elected family of faith.

7. The “problem” is finally resolved in “four atoning moments”: the life of Jesus, the death of Jesus, the resurrection of Jesus, and the gift of the Holy Spirit.

8. The “locus” of resolution is the family of faith: three big words in the bible that describe this family of faith are Israel, the Kingdom, and the Church.


This understanding of the gospel would not marginalize the church, but instead make the community the heart of God’s work in the world. Is McKnight’s more robust gospel better than the pervasive 4 spiritual law version? Is the tract gospel the source of our diminished ecclesiology and individualism? Are we even open to a wider discussion about the nature of the gospel, or is such a thing taboo—to only be permitted in “emerging” circles?



http://blog.christianitytoday.com/outofur/archives/2007/06/is_your_gospel.html#more

Core/Non-Core Beliefs: More from Dan Kimball

I think what I like most about Dan Kimball is that, unlike a lot of what I see (or perceive) in the emerging church, is that he always, always keeps Jesus as the central core of who we are and what we are doing. I think that often the lines get blurry in emerging churches as we get so caught up showing people the love of Jesus that we fail to show them Jesus Himself. Dan Kimball never seems to forget this & constantly reminds us to do the same.

This latest entry is directly from his blog at http://www.dankimball.com/vintage_faith/2007/06/what_to_use_for.html#comments.

Be challenged and enjoy.

What to use for a metaphor of "core" or "non-core" beliefs

I was part of the Emergence event this weekend that was in Seattle that Zondervan put on. It was an informal panel discussion based a lot out of the Listening to Beliefs of Emerging Churches book.

On the panel was myself, Mark Driscoll, Doug Pagitt, Karen Ward, and the moderator of the panel was the NPR radio host of "Speaking of Faith" Krista Tippett.

I got to go out with Mark D. afterward on Friday night and he took me to a Seattle hang out and we chatted for a couple hours. It is always good to hear what is going on in his life and in the incredible growth and story of Mars Hill Church. Then Saturday, I went to Karen Ward's church, Church of the Apostles, which I have been wanting to go to for many years. Then Saturday and Saturday night hung out with Doug as went to where he spoke at Mars Hill Graduate School. And it was fun to see my old dear friend from Santa Cruz, Wendy Elizabeth who was at the event too and hung out with us.

The format of the panel was fairly loose - we sat in chairs in a row and had informal sort of dialog about a wide variety of issues. In the beginning to start it, we each presented a little about our church. So I walked through how as a 3 year old church, we are "asking God to transform us into a-worshiping-community-of missional theologians".

When I got to the "theologians" part I tried to describe how we want to focus in terms of doctrines and beliefs on the ones which throughout church history and whether one was reading the Bible in the year 500 or 1500 or 2007, would be truths that have been understood by Spirit-filled believers. I labeled these are "Core Beliefs". These are the ones which I believe we should be uniting over and focusing on, especially as we are living more and more in a post-Christian culture.

I then put up another slide showing what I called "Non-Core" beliefs - which are doctrines and beliefs that have a diversity of opinions on them throughout church history. These are ones that someone may have a personal opinion about - yet at the same time there are godly, Spirit-filled scholars and theologians who have differing opinions. Which to me, shows that God knows what is truth on these matters, but we as sin-tainted human beings have a harder time understanding for 100% certainty on these issues.

For example, in the "Core Beliefs" I listed that Jesus will return and there is judgment that will happen. But in the "Non-Core Beliefs" I listed that how Jesus will return but the timetable is not clear. The clarity is that He will return, but the unclarity is how He will return (amillennial, premillennial, post-trib, pre-trib etc.) We may have an opinion, we may think we are right. But the fact is, there are differences of opinions about these issues throughout church history and in the church today. Or that God created everything ex nihilo "out of nothing" (as I believe) but not argue about whether it was a literal 6 day creation or if it was a 6,000,000 year creation. We may have an opinion, but there are godly Spirit-filled Christians who agree on ex nihilio, but differ on how long it took and whether Genesis 1 and 2 was supposed to be looked at as literal 24 hour days or not.

So I was trying to stress, that I wish we would focus on what I called "Core Beliefs" and unite on those. I hope we don't fight, point fingers, slander, argue about the "Non-Core Beliefs". I have read and heard such ugly attitudes from Christians about these things in the "non-core beliefs". I know that "the role of women in the church" is such a very hot and understandably emotional issue, and some may say it is not a "Non-Core Belief" but a "Core Belief". But the fact is, there are wonderful people who take the study of Scriptures very seriously, and hold the Scriptures with high authority and do have differences of opinion on that and are complementarians or egalitarians. So I put that in the "Non-Core Beliefs" category, as something we shouldn't fight over or slander others if another church holds a different opinion than our own.

After I said this, I was challenged that coming up with distinctions and using a metaphor of "Core" and "Non-Core" is not a good thing to do and metaphors fall short etc. I agree that every metaphor falls short. But as I have been thinking about it, I cannot think of another way to put it. I know God does not see "core" and "non-core" beliefs, as the whole Bible is inspired and He knows what He meant in the ones we have a harder time figuring out.

If someone has a metaphor, or way of describing what I am trying to communicate with this, I would love to hear it. I just looked at the slides I used again, and of course there could be a hundred things listed on each one. But it was best attempt at trying to explain the difference of "core" and "non-core" and make a summary of what I was trying to communicate for a slide presentation. I do wish we would stop pointing fingers and mocking, slandering, bickering, and all that happens about the "non-core" beliefs though. Especially in the days we live in. I did include Apple/PC and the DLR/SH letters stand for "David Lee Roth and Sammy Hagar" and that who is the better singer for Van Halen is a "non-core" issue.

I don't want to make light of the seriousness of doctrines, but I also was trying to stress that I hope we don't go too far and argue about things I wonder if we will be ashamed at one day with other brothers and sisters in the "non-core" list. Maybe it is too hard to even try and make some sort of list and use a metaphor. But that is my thinking as of 12:08 AM as I sit in Timberline Lodge in the mountains of Oregon. I am here for the Doctor of Ministry class that I am in, and we are here all week.

Posted by Dan Kimball on June 05, 2007 at 12:22 AM Permalink

Dan Kimball on the Consumerism of the Church

Dan Kimball is a guy who has really challenged me in the past few months. I am on my second read of "They like Jesus but not the Church", this time around with highlighter and pencil in hand. Super challenging, incredibly enlightening.

This is from "Out of Ur"'s blog. Well worth the read.

Vintage Consumerism

Dan Kimball on the history and impact of consumer Christianity.

We caught up with Dan Kimball, pastor of Vintage Faith Church in Santa Cruz, California, and author of They Like Jesus but Not the Church (Zondervan, 2007), at a conference where he was talking to other leaders about consumerism and the church. Kimball says the size of a church isn’t what makes it consumer driven, but how the leaders define success.

You’ve been talking to other pastors about consumerism in the church and the impact it’s had on our theology. How do you begin to recognize that impact?

You hear a lot of the complaints and valid criticism about the church being “a provider of religious goods and services,” as Darrell Guder says in the Missional Church. I started thinking about my own church and asking could the leadership be the ones who are really guilty of this? How did that happen?

I began to think about our meeting spaces. The early church met in homes where it is easier to participate, people can contribute, can be more vocal, make a meal, whatever. And then worship moved to the Roman basilicas and the format changed. People became more passive, but they still walked around and engaged. After the Reformation pews were brought in and people began to understand church different because they become passive. Expectations of a pastor and a leader become different. People expected us to do things for them.

So how has that translated into the church today?

We’ve been taught that this is how church goes. This is what you’re supposed to do. But now we’re making it better and bigger—better seating, better lighting, better sermons, better parking, better children’s ministry, better youth ministry. We’re simply fueling the whole thing.

But all of the consumer assumptions underneath are the same.

Yeah. And we haven’t yet challenged those assumptions. But my bigger question is what is this producing? Is it really producing people who are living and demonstrating the fruit of the Spirit in their lives? Are they loving one another and loving God more? What are we looking at for success?

So what is your sense? Are the ‘bigger and better’ churches producing the fruit of the Spirit?

I think it depends on the church leadership. As you talk to different leaders you pick up what they focus on. Ask them how they define success or what are they most excited about. That’s an interesting question. It reveals a lot. You can have a church of twenty thousand but what are you looking at as success? If I walked up to a person at your church would they say I’m here to get my religious goods and services. Or would they say I’m an active participant in the mission of this church, and this big worship meeting is just one part of it. Of course you can go to a small worship meeting and have the same exact thing. So it’s not about big church or little church necessarily.

So what are you guys doing at Vintage Faith to question those underlying assumptions of consumer faith?

We are asking God to transform us into a worshiping community of missional theologians.

Whoa. Whoa. Whoa. Say that again.

We’re asking God to transform us (because it can’t be done through human effort); into a worshiping community (because we want to be worshipers first); of missional theologians (because if we’re on a mission in our culture we have to be thinkers).
We’re calling the church more of a missional training center as much as we can. We’re launching community groups. We’re calling them "community groups" even though we see them as house churches, but that name has weird connotations for some.

And what about your worship on Sunday, does that look different too?

Not really. Sunday meetings are just one part of the rhythm of the week when we all gather together, and we try to express worship to God and to teach in ways that creatively reflect who we are and the values we are striving to hold. Sundays are about community, care, worship and Scripture. But I’d hope that if you were to walk up to someone in our church and ask them “What is church?” they wouldn’t talk about the big meeting but about being on a mission.

Posted by UrL on May 29, 2007

http://blog.christianitytoday.com/outofur/archives/2007/05/vintage_consume.html#more

13 Paradigm Shifts

I love Donald Miller. Here's one (or rather, thirteen) reasons why:

Thirteen Paradigm Shifts we encountered doing Christian ministry in a pagan environment
by Donald Miller

1. Other People Exist:

Simply coming to the understanding that the world does not revolve around “me” but that everybody is having an experience, created by God, loved by God, and that we needed to repent of showing partiality.

2. Nobody will listen to you unless they know you like them:

We began to understand that people, subconsciously, merit a
religious or philosophical idea not on logical conclusions, but on whether or not the idea creates a “good person”…the definition of a good person being whether or not a person is kind to them, tolerant and understanding, able to listen without arguing and so on.

3. Nobody will listen to God unless they know God loves them:

We came to believe there was usually a hidden pain behind
hostility, that many people have been hurt by the church, or people or perspectives they believed to represent God. Many times it's as simple as an interview they saw on CNN, but an apology and kindness went a long way in helping people understand God was loving.

4. Other people have morality and values:

We came to understand that Christians do not own morality, that everybody lives by a moral code, not always informed by an ancient text, and yet it is there. Calling people or even thinking of them as immoral was, then, inappropriate. In fact, we often found that people who did not know Christ lived a morality close to his heart in many areas we had ignored, ie; community, tolerance, social justice, fairness and equality, freedom, beauty and so on.

5. Find common ground:

Often the morality of others overlapped Christian morality, and we came to understand that in these cases, we would focus on the overlapping issues. We came to see this as kindness, just as though we were on a date or making friends, we did not focus on what we didn’t have in common, but rather on mutual feelings about life. We would not say or do anything to combat people unless they knew we loved them, and this takes a great deal of time.

6. Define terms in their language:

We were careful about Christian sayings and phrases that might be offensive: Crusade, sin, immorality….we came to understand that concepts were more sacred than terms.

7. Telling somebody about the gospel is about them, not us:

We were careful not to try to “build our organization” and respected peoples freedom and space. Sharing the gospel became an exercise in friendship, rather than an attempt to grow a machine. Often, people feel used if they feel they are being recruited. The gospel, we learned, is really about them, their feelings about God and truth, about sin, about life.

8. Don’t let spreading the gospel feel any different than telling
somebody about a love in your life, about your children or a great
memory:

We realized that in telling somebody about Jesus, we were telling them about somebody we have come to love and need, and about something that had happened to us, an encounter. This keeps us from sounding preachy, and allows us to share part of ourselves in a friendship.

9. Include lost People in Your Community:

Our organization was not exclusive. We invited non-believers into the community if they wanted to be invited. We were careful not to not be ourselves with them, but they were certainly invited and enjoyed being a part of the group. We explained terms that we used, what we believed, but other than that, continued as normal.

10. Apologize for what you represent:

We discovered that many people have been offended or hurt by what they perceive Christianity to be. We allowed ourselves to stand in the place of “Christianity” and apologize whenever necessary.

11. Be authentic:

We discovered the need to be as honest about our lives as possible. We did not feel the need to sell Jesus, as much as share what He has done in our broken lives. We had no problem sharing our doubts and fears about faith, along with our commitment and appreciation for what God had done.

12. Pray for the Salvation of others:

We discovered the need to pray for others. This would insure God was working in peoples lives, as we asked Him to. We discovered the work of evangelism is something God lets us watch, but very little of it is what we manipulate. We repented of not believing evangelism was a spiritual exchange between a lost person and God, rather than believing it was a series of ideas we were supposed to convince others of.

13. Ask people if they would like to know Christ:

We decided to initiate, whenever the relationship called for it. We were not afraid to ask people if they would like to know God.

How Emergent are You?

I like the emerging church. My church is part of the "emerging conversation". Well, I guess we are. I mean, I've never heard anyone actually say it. But you know, "if it looks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck ..."

(Quack)

I love conversation. I love that the Church is having conversation, not just with "church people" but with the world.

I do like the word "emerging". I like it a lot, in fact. I especially like the definition when we do apply it to Church with a big 'C', the Body, those of us who follow Jesus Christ.

Emerging: to come forth into view or
notice, as from concealment or obscurity. To become evident.

Yeah, baby. The Church should be evident in the world. We should constantly be emergent. I can dig this.

Anyhow ... the following blog is not my own. I wish I had written it, but I didn't. It's pretty short and sweet in outlining the conversation. Original citations, credits and links are included.

Enjoy the conversation.

How Emergent Are You? McLaren's Seven Layers of the Emergent Conversation

Islam has its five pillars. Buddhism has its eight-fold path. Evangelicalism has its four spiritual laws. And now the Emerging Church has its seven layers of conversation.

Last month I was part of a small gathering of church leaders that hosted an evening with Brian McLaren. And the conversation turned as hot as the chutney. A number of participants were eager to discuss the criticisms that have been levied against the emerging church in recent months. The hijacking of the emergent movement by those merely interested in new worship trends rather than more substantive issues aggravated others. Everyone was looking to McLaren to chime in.

Always more likely to defuse than to detonate, McLaren entered the spicy conversation casually while slouched into the sofa with beverage in hand. He cautioned us against judging where others were in the “emergent conversation.” Leaning forward, he outlined what he saw as the seven layers of the emergent conversation. "We all enter at a different layer," he said, "but everyone should be welcomed into the conversation no matter where they may be." [italics mine]

Based on McLaren’s description, I’ve outlined the seven layers below.
I’ve added my own titles and used the imaginary “Seeker Community Church” to illustrate each point.

Layer 1: Style

Seeker Community Church realizes they’re ineffective at reaching the coveted 18-32 year old demographic. They send a few staff members to a conference and they come back with goatees and candles.

Layer 2: Evangelism

After trying every facial hair permutation, Seeker Community Church discovers that to actually communicate the gospel to a younger generation they’ve got to learn to speak their language. They hire a former youth pastor to start an evening worship service with an “x” in its name.

Layer 3: Culture

It gradually dawns upon Seeker Community Church that the new challenges they are encountering are not limited to the younger generation. The entire culture is shifting away from the modern presuppositions their church was built upon. Some of the language and practices of the “x” service trickle into the rest of the church.

Layer 4: Mission

The emergence of Postmodernism causes Seeker Community Church to reevaluate the effectiveness of their mission strategy. Altar calls and gospel tracks are left behind in favor of community groups and relationships. Conversion is accepted as a journey and not merely a point of decision.

Layer 5: Church

Seeker Community Church begins to wonder if a multi million-dollar building housing a theatrical production every weekend is the only way to do church. Drawing from new and ancient forms of church, they launch alternative communities—one meets in a bar on Sunday night, and the other is a liturgical gathering. The church also partners with an inner city monastic group to reach street kids.

Layer 6: Gospel

The leadership of Seeker Community Church is stunned when the senior pastor confesses, “I’m not sure I’ve really understood the gospel.” He begins to wonder why Jesus never said God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life? And why Paul never asked anyone to invite Jesus into your heart? He starts to realize that the Good News is much more than he’d ever imagined.

Layer 7: World

Maybe the mission of the church isn’t simply to become a bigger church? Maybe, like Jesus, the church is to engage the larger world to reveal that the kingdom of God has drawn near? To their amazement, Seeker Community Church discovers significant swaths of the Bible (such as the Pentateuch, prophets, gospels, and epistles) talk about justice, poverty, and compassion. The church begins to speak about social issues and participates in efforts to combat poverty, AIDS, and global injustice.

So, how emergent are you?

Posted by Skye Jethani on October 28, 2005

http://blog.christianitytoday.com/outofur/archives/2005/10/mclarens_seven_layers1.html