and

Here is Alan Roxburgh's report on the report on "Forming Leaders for the Missional/emerging Church consultation which took place in April.  The event was sponsored by Fuller/Allelon and brought together 40 leaders from USA, Canada, UK, New Zealand and Australia.  I had the privilege of being with them.  Ryan Bolger and Eddie Gibbs hosted the consultation.

peace, dwight

Jim Henderson, Seattle-area evangelism guru, friend and director of Off-the-Map (not the Muppet guy – that was "Henson") has a new book coming out on June 21st: a. k. a. "Lost": discovering ways to connect with the people Jesus misses most. 

 

 

 

One of the questions Jim asks is, "What if 'evangelism' meant being yourself?" 

 

Yes, I said the E-word; but Jim said it first!  Jim boldly goes where many in the avant-church conversation fear to tread.  This maybe one of the first "evangelism texts" I have seen, written for those with serious doubts about the role modern evangelistic strategies play in the lives of Christ-followers. 

 

The book could almost be seen as a field guide for fostering real & mutually transforming connections. 

 

After reading the book, one of the thoughts that came to my mind was that everyone in the world is an evangelist.  The question is: "What is the news we share?"  If breathing and sneezing are inevitable . . . "What germs are we carrying?" 

 

One of the challenges with the notion that, "evangelism is being ourselves" (us in Christ/Christ in us) is that so few of us want to be ourselves; all too often we live with some "grass-is-greener-on-the-side" vision of self-hood.  This "grass-is-greener-selfhood" could lead to a faux-Christianity where we "sell" something scarcely embodied but "evangelism as 'being ourselves'" sounds a lot like Christ's invitation to a "full life."  As my friend Len says, 'witness' may be better understood as 'withness.' 

 

The book works from a bold premise that Christians could actually trust that God will work in them and through them by the Holy Spirit.  Western Christians seem increasingly ready for this kind of trust, even though we have a history of leaning on proven programs rather than risk being personally/communally present.  The text works from a robust pneumatology.

 

I hope Jim's book will spur even more people to think creatively and practically about what it means to shape the ethos of a person/community/globe by the gift of our own presence. 

 

peace, dwight

Ever since I posted yesterday's blog I've been wondering whether I should have. Lynette read it and asked me whether I had intended to make, even a subtle connection to the controversy of the last few months, about gay men intentionally having unprotected sex with aids infected friends.

Honestly, I wasn't thinking that way at all when I posted. Sometimes my enjoyment of causing a stir gets the better of me. I should have sat with the idea a little longer before posting. I was trying to stress the radical nature of Christ's incarnation, and thus, the radical nature of what following Christ might mean.

I bet there might be a better metaphor.

Peace, dwight

I'm wrestling with "Incarnational living" and wondering about the relationship of syncretism & incarnation.

1. Like STDs, the only sure fire way for the church to "protect" herself from syncretism is abstinence.
2. Of course one can wear protection, doing the best to stay pure while relating with the infected.
3. Or one can contract an STD themselves and never worry about the issue again.

Which is most like the incarnation of Christ?

In focusing on the dangers of syncretism do we place dogma (and other externals) at the center of Christianity rather the person of Christ? We may be exposing our mistrust in the Spirit's sanctifying process. Not trusting that God will in fact guide his people in all Truth (Christ).

When we see signs of syncretism it may in fact be an invitation for us to befriend and walk alongside. Who knows, in the process God may reveal that it was us who were "guilty" of syncretism.

The other day I had a conversation with a woman who, though she may not have used these words, was challenging the notion of the church efforts to be fully present in a pomo/post-critical context.

It doesn't matter whether we agree with post-critical thinking or not. Our culture is already there or moving there rapidly. It seems the Kingdom of God needs Christ-followers willing to immerse themselves in the language of post-criticism not for the purpose of converting people back to critical thinking. But to allow for the freedom for Christ to be formed in the fully post-critical.

I have to say that during the last couple of weeks I have been amazed to hear how often the words "I agree" and "I disagree" have appeared in some of the pomo blogs and websites that are out there. Could our need to agree be a sign (semiotics) that we are not likely going to be the people who can make this transition. I'm not sure but I don't think we need to agree with each other to love each other, agreement is not even the point.

We need a new way to think, an embodied way that can hold the tension of disagreement in the bonds of love. It may be wise to practice saying things like: "Where I'm at right now . . . " "As best as I understand it . . . " "Help me understand . . . ."  It seems that we might be helped if we spend some time deconstructing our personal theologies.

Peace, dwight