Bill Easums Observations

The Incarnational Conversations 

This is the third in a series of observations on some of the more significant conversations occuring within Christianity that will have a profound impact on the church. You might want to  first read the two previous posts on this theme. 

Alan Hirsch is the primary mover and shaker of the Incarnational movement. You can see his blog at http://www.theforgottenways.org/blog/. You can also click here to see a book review I did of his book, The Forgotten Ways.

Alan’s primary message is the U.S. Christianity is only reaching 35% of the population and that number is shrinking. In order to reach the rest of the postmoderns we must go back to first century ways of doing ministry and that spells trouble for the institutional church.

Incarnational church leaders focus on going to where people are instead of attracting people to come to them. The incarnational church (most of which are fledglings groups) sends people out into the culture to spread the seeds of Christianity. Having a worship service and doing things to attract people to the church aren’t a concern. Relationships and friendships among the neighborhoods where one lives are their primary concern.  The Incarnational model is seeking to bring the church back to its historical roots and free it from its institutionally dominated understanding of what it means to be a church.  However, taken to its ultimate conclusion, the institutional church isn’t needed. Most of the incarnational churches exist apart from any form of institutional church and are more akin to house churches.

Alan’s first book, The Shaping of Things to Come, is a book that should be read by every Christian who knows something is wrong with today’s version of Christianity but can’t put their finger on what it is. The authors challenge every facet of Christianity today from ordination to the traditional creeds and offer a new, but ancient, way forward. It is well worth the read because it will open your eyes to some possible ways to redo or undo your ministry. 

Throughout the book I found myself saying “Yes, But!” On one level I envy the journey on which they invite us to join them. On another level I wonder what will become of the institutional church if what they propose is followed.  They are surely on to something, but following it might totally destroy the church as we know it. They go far beyond “reshaping” or talking about innovation as is found on the cover.  A better title for the book might be “The Rewiring of Things to Come: The Beginning of a Revolution.”

The authors are advocating a wholesale rewiring of Christianity back its 21st century roots. They actually show how to be the church without being institutional at all. They talk about a missional, incarnational, messianic, apostolic church that is found within the surrounding community rather than within the four walls of a church.

Although I agree with Hirsch about the church forgetting what it means to be the church, I feel it’s impossible for Christianity to survive without the institution in a society where institutions are part of the basic fabric of life. I know Christianity flourished under Mao in China without any institutions, but that was China in a day when public institutions were not part of the fabric of society.

So, here’s my question in the Incarnationalists: Should we downplay the importance of the institutional church just because the vast majority of them are ineffective and do not reflect the spirit of Christ or should we seek to return them to their biblical roots? Can a totally non-institutional church thrive in a society based totally on institutions? If you really hold  to your beliefs, why do you still leave room for the institutional church?

Next week I will take a look at the Organic Movement, which some might put in the same camp as the Incarnationalists, but I don’t. I will give special attention to Viola’s new book, Reimagining Church.
 

The Emergent Conversations 

(If you haven’t read the previous post you might want to do so for clarification)  Although no one person speaks for the Emergents, so far the primary mover and shaker of this movement is clearly Brian McLaren. His book, A Generous Orthodoxy, is a basic primer for Emergents. But recently Tony Jones, the National Coordinator of Emergent Village has become one of the most helpful voices for those trying to understand Emergents.  His book, The New Christians, is the best explanation of Emergents to date (although I don’t think the title helps the conversation.)  

If you have followed my writings the past year you know I have voiced some concerns about the direction the Emergent movement is going, especially in the writings of Brian. However, The New Christians has addressed many of my concerns to the point that I’m not quite as uncomfortable with their inquiries into the meaning of Scripture. I recommend anyone read Appendix B “A Response to our Critics.” It is worth the price of the book. Jones clearly states that Emergents believe that no one comes to God except through Jesus. That should put many questions to rest and cause angst to others, but it settles my primary concern.  

Emergents are hard to describe http://www.emergentvillage.com/.  The National Park world (prior to 1980s) was an “either/or” world. You either did it our way or there was the highway. The Jungle (today’s world) is what I refer to as a “Both/and” world. Emergents practice a “both/and” approach to issues which makes it very hard to pin them down. They prefer shades of gray, albeit deep shades of gray, to something that is clearly definitive. 

The best way to describe this movement is to start with their basic message: Emergents believe that it is no longer possible to hold on to the tenets and practices of modern day Christianity for two reasons; they are flawed and they don’t relate to today’s world. The postmodern world requires a new view of faith and new kind of Christian- a postmodern faith and a postmodern Christian.  

The Emergent movement is all about entering into conversations about what it means to be a Christian in a postmodern world. The conversations focus around a yet to be determined theology and new way of life. The more conversations the closer they might come to truth. However, to them truth is more beauty more than fact. Truth is messy and beautiful but never objective or eternally certain. Emergents will speak with passion and urgency but never with certainty. To them there is no certainty, only what one believes today, at this moment, in this locale. In addition, they seem to leave open the option of their theology evolving beyond what we know as Scripture as well as a total reinterpretation of that Scripture. The good thing about Emergents is they are a gentle people actively and graciously seeking dialogue with divergent forms of thought.   

The Key issue I have with the Emergent movement is this – Is the message of the Gospel actual reality and eternally true, or is it nothing more than a construct of our own language within the community of faith at this particular time in history in this particular place with this particular community? The emerging movement says we can never really know the reality of the Gospel apart from our communal language- that is our talk within the community constructs the gospel- which brings us very close to relativism. When accused of being relativistic in their thought they respond by saying everything is relative. Emergents remind me more of philosophers than theologians.
 
The Emergents want to change the theological dialogue so that it can have better conversation with the theology of the marketplace.  They are rethinking how theology changes in culture, a very dangerous approach to ministry. I don’t feel as if we have to adopt a postmodern faith in order to reach the postmodern world. That’s far too much compromise. We also don’t have to adopt a postmodern faith in order to address the issues raised by these emerging leaders.   

However, I do agree with them that we must adopt new methods of reaching the new world. Like we’ve heard many times- we must be in the world but not of the world. I agree with the authors that we can’t come on to postmoderns like gangbusters with an elitist attitude as if we have THE truth. I agree with them that the four spiritual laws no longer work. I agree with them that if we lead from the big story we are dead in the water. I agree with them (and with Viola) that the distinction between clergy and laity is not biblical and shouldn’t exist. I agree with them that the new world sees everything in shades of gray. But I do not agree that Christians must feel they have to be two steps removed from the reality of the Gospel in order to reach this new world. In fact, I think it is just the opposite. The clearer a leader is about the reality of gospel and the direction of their calling the more likely that person is to lead a growing and thriving community of faith.  

I still don’t feel the Emergent movement is going to be the primary shaper of the new Christian world. I think it will be a part of it, but only a small part. Look at most of the emerging churches-they are small and you seldom hear about them. That’s because they believe and live as if small is better than big. They don’t even believe in planting churches in order to reach more people, nor do they believe in doing things to get people to come to their church.  They plant churches only to save themselves, whatever that means.  

So here’s my question for the Emergents. In a world where so many people are searching for spiritual guidance from so many venues, can you offer to take the position that Christians have to become like them in order to offer the direction they are seeking? Isn’t the Gospel always counter to the culture? Do you really believe broken people are going to be satisfied with never being eternally certain about anything? Do you really think people can have a personal relationship with Jesus when they know all that relationship consists of is the construct of their communal language? Do you really believe that people will believe that words brought Jesus back from the dead? Do you really believe you can reach the bulk of the population when you take the conversation as deep as you do? Or are you really only concerned with appealing to philosophers? 

The Emergent movement is providing a marvelous conversation for all of us. They have revealed the naked truth- the emperor has no clothes. The established Christian church is basically dead and in need of A Second Resurrection. For that we can be grateful and enjoy the conversation to a point. It should continue to be a fun ride for those who are secure enough to question their own understanding of reality.

For an ongoing conversation on Emergents between Bill Easum and Tony Jones and others click here

Next week the Incarnational Conversations.

Bill Easum
www.easumbandy.com

Many who follow my writing know that two of my favorite metaphors for describing the signs of the times are National Park and Jungle (you might want to read this before reading on). Briefly what I mean by this is that prior to the 1980s we lived in what I describe as a National Park world. If you let your imagination run wild with this metaphor you will conjure up many images about the world that was, but for now just think of the world prior to 1980 as a tame, either/or world that played by a set of well known rules. Now change mindsets and think about the world since 1990 as a jungle and let you imagination run wild as you compare the two metaphors, but for now think of the emerging world as a wild and unsafe place of both/and that has no established rules other than the law of the jungle- survival.

In this wild, unruly world, a growing conversation is taking place that no Christian leader can afford to ignore.  The players in this conversation are multiplying like rabbits.  As we will see in a moment, much of the future of Western Christianity lies at the heart of this conversation. So we had better pay attention.

Here’s a list of the primary players as of now

The Emergent Folks
The Incarnational Folks
The Organic Folks
The Attractional Folks
The Reproductive Folks

Here is the where they fall on my continuum with the far left being a radical departure from traditional Christianity and the far right being the closest to third century Christianity.

Emergent —Incarnational — Organic — Attractional –Reproductive

Several books are shaping this conversation. Here is a list of some of them based on the above continuum:

Emergent

The New Christians by Tony Jones
Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church, by D.A. Carson
Everything Must Change, by Brian McLaren
A Generous Orthodoxy, by Brian McLaren
A Christianity Worth Believing, Doug Pagitt
Truth and the New Kind of Christian, R. Scott Smith
They Like Jesus But Not the Church, Dan Kimball

Not Emergent Anymore

Radical Reformission, by Mark Driscoll

Incarnational

The Shaping of Things to Come, by Alan Hirsch
The  Forgotten Ways  by Alan Hirsch

Almost  Incarnational

The Tangible Kingdom, by Halter and Smay
Pagan Christianity, Viola and Barna

Organic

The Organic Church, by Neil Cole
Inside the Organic Church by Bob Whitesell

Attractional

The Externally Focused Church, Rusaw and Swanson
The Purpose Driven Church, Warren
The American Church in Crises, Olsen

Reproductive

The Multiplying Church, by Roberts
Missional Leader, Roxburg
A Second Resurrection, by Easum
Unfreezing Moves, by Easum
The Sticky Church, Osborne (TBR)

The Conversations of Our Time

This conversation is primarily focused on the nature and mission of the church in the postmodern world as well as how Scripture is interpreted. Over the next few weeks I will try to shape each of these conversations and their implications.

Bill Easum
www.easumbandy.com

From time to time, I write about movements that I see emerging. The last three movements I wrote about were local churches establishing and staffing church planting centers within their churches, congregations with more than one location, and churches and organizations whose goal is to reach their city for Christ.  All three of these movements continue to gain momentum. Now, I want to focus on another movement that is having a profound effect on American Protestantism and I want to couple it with the three movements already mentioned. 

Three forms of church governance dominate the church landscape today: congregational, representative democracy, and apostolic or pastor led. Feelings usually run high as to which one of these is the best form of governance.  However, most of the churches using forms of congregational or representative democracy are leftovers from Modernity, and are either dying or on a plateau.  On the other hand, the vast majority of thriving churches are apostolic or pastor led.  We’ve also noted that the thriving churches using congregational and representative forms of governance have figured out how to circumvent as much of their governance systems as possible.   Over the past 15 years, I have had the opportunity to observe some of

  The rule of thumb of this new movement – the less democracy in the church the more authentic and effective the church is in advancing the Kingdom of

I just finished the first round of consulting and training with the Action Chapel International. It is a movement of Pentecostal churches out of Ghana that has gone world-wide over the past twenty years and is now in the U.S.  My role is to help them bring some order to the movement without turning it into a denomination- the archbishop is very clear on that point. We put a loose structure in place that will allow them to truly be one church in one location throughout the world. Now my role is to provide ongoing training.

The reason I’m telling you this is because of something that happened the last day that made my trip. Keep in mind that we were imposing order on a movement that for twenty years was allowed to run with the wind. I was a bit concerned how well this new twist would be received. When we finished unfolding the new structure and accountability system, the Archbishop led the group in another round of prayer-centered worship. When he finished praying, without any prompting the entire room broke into clapping and praise. All I could think of was, now this is the way it should be in the church- when the spiritual leader speaks, the church rejoices.

I’m sure you’ve been in meetings where radical change was being unfolded to a board or congregation and the response was vastly different.  Somehow in most of the U. S. churches, especially those that are declining, pastors are not considered to be the spiritual leader of the congregation. Instead, they are looked upon as the servant of the congregation who is suppose to take care of the congregation the way a caretaker of a museum takes care of the artifacts. 

How did we come to this when the Bible is very clear about the spiritual authority of the Elders (pastors). They are to be respected and their leadership is to be followed or they are to be replaced.  Somehow we have replaced biblical authority with a demonic form of democracy. But we have no written record of God leading through democracy. Yet most churches impose some form of democracy on their people.

But here’s the catch- democracy and Holy Spirit are like oil and water- they don’t mix, ever. Isn’t it time we owned up to our sin of replacing biblical authority with democracy, and throw the villain out?

I talked about this in the opening chapter of the book I co-authored with Bill Cornelius, Go Big: How to Have Explosive Growth.  Anytime you have an organization with meeting-layered Democracy and consensus building, you hamstring the power of the Holy Spirit and you reduce the effectiveness of God’s movement in the world.

See you at the chaos.

Bill Easum
www.easumbandy.com

I first wrote about movements in my book Unfreezing Moves: Following Jesus into the Mission Field.   I described Christianity as an organic movement and compared it to modern day religion. God intended for Christianity to be a movement not a religion.  The problem is Christianity has been highjacked by our passion for democracy.

Movements only happen when an individual is free enough to take on the mantel of an apostle. Democracy hates an apostle with a passion- thus we have been free from movements in the U.S. for some time now.

However, over the past few years I’ve watched the emergence of a number of apostolic leaders who are changing the face of Christianity in the U.S.  In an article titled “The Apostolic Movement of our Time, I wrote the following about this new movement

• One quality stands out above all the rest in every one of these pastors – they pastor as spiritual leaders who listen to God rather than corporate leaders who lead based on democratic rule. 
• The rule of thumb of this new movement – the less democracy in the church the more authentic and effective the church is in advancing the Kingdom of God!

 You can read the full article here.

Bill Easum
www.easumbandy.com

This week I’ve been working with a charismatic movement of some 300 churches that were planted out of Ghana (Action Chapel International) led by Archbishop Nicholas Duncan-Williams. They had pulled together several of their key pastors from over the world to work out a structure to allow them to explode throughout the world. The presently have churches in Ghana, Netherlands, U.S., London, Italy, Germany, Benin, Nigeria, Cdlvoire, Sierra Leone and Liberia and are opening churches in Asia and the Middle East.  Their goal is 150 new churches in 2009.

They are functioning like a multi site church- one church in many locations. Like many movements that take off explosively they have no way of holding all of the leaders accountable financially and missionally. Getting  hole or the  financial is the easy part- you just start tracking and holding each church accountable for a certain amount coming back into the movement. Getting hold of the missional is more difficult.

In the mind of the Archbishop, the movement exists to plant churches throughout the world. This means that each church has to be willing to assist in the planting of churches, both with money and with planters.

The problem is this mission has never been intentionally articulated and recast on a regular basis. It has been a practice but not a clearly defined mandate that could hold all the churches accountable.

So we had to nail down the vision of the movement- to make Christ known throughout the world through the multiplication of Action Chapel International Churches. Once that was done I had to say, from hence forth all churches that remain in this movement must be on board with financially and missionally supporting the vision. 

Movements have to have two things to survive – trust in the founder and team players throughout the movement.  There can be no deviation on the vision. They exist to plant churches throughout the world and everyone must commit to that vision.

The buy in during the second day was incredible. The Archbishop had embedded his church planting gene in his lieutenants. Now they are ready to move forward.

I’ve been thinking and writing about movements now for several years beginning with my book Unfreezing Moves. Lately I’ve worked on a paper titled The Anatomy of a Movement. History hasn’t been kind to movements. The only way they survive is if the founder leaves a fluid system in place that carries on his or her spirit and raises up an Elisha who is as charismatic as he or she is.

I have to say I’m having a ball working with this group and hope to have more opportunities to work with them and to learn from them. They are much different from me but they are on the same mission I’m on- to make Jesus known throughout the world.

I have one more day with the group and then I’m home for a three week vacation. I  normally don’t work in the summer, but this summer has offered too many rare opportunities to turn down.

Bill Easum
www.easumbandy.com

One thing separates the mediocre pastor’s actions from those of the highly effective and might I say biblical pastor. Know what it is? Okay, don’t want to guess? Well here it is – the mediocre pastors spends most of his or her time doing all kinds of pastoral care- taking care of members, visiting the hospitals and shut-in, mediating conflict in the church, doing counseling, and doing things in the office other than devotional or sermon prep.

So what does a highly effective pastor do?

I guess before I answer that question I need to define what I mean by “highly effective.” To me “highly effective” means the pastor is doing something to enhance both the Great Commandment and the Great Commission, i.e. the church is a place of love, trust, and growing people.

So what does a highly effective pastor do? As little as possible other than focus on being the spiritual architect who sets the culture and mentors the core leaders.

So what happens to pastoral care?

Read Acts 6 and you will get your answer.

I have been a United Methodist Pastor since 1968 (the United Conference). That’s a long time. Obviously, I love the UMC. Do I Still love it? You bet.  If I were starting over today would I be a United Methodist again? I’d have to give that some serious thought! Does that break my heart? You bet. Let me tell you why? And as I do, keep in mind that what follows is a diagnosis of an illness that needs treating and not a negative rant of disenfranchised person.  If you don’t like the diagnosis, see another doctor and get another opinion but don’t bury your head in the sand and think the illness will go away on its own.

I choose the UMC. It did not choose me. I choose it because I fell in love with John Wesley, read about the sacrifices of the circuit riders, and was befriended by a couple of United Methodist Pastors at a time when I needed a good friend.  I read about Wesley taking it to the streets and the circuit riders doing whatever was necessary to carry the Good News from town to town as the country grew west and lasting on average 18 months before dying from the ordeal. I was so impressed with the passion and quest for the completion of the Great Commission that I gave myself 100% to the call to serve such a great system.

 But over these 40 years I have watched my beloved denomination drift into a deep and potential lethal sickness, and that saddens me.  I can’t begin to chronicle all the warning signs in this post but I do want to share one example that sums up a lot of the sickness I’m observing.

 A couple of days ago I received the following email from a friend (I have doctored it as to safeguard the anonymity of the person who shared it with me.  This friend was a pastor of a UMC but he had never been to seminary. He only had local pastor credentials (a term for second class pastors in the UMC).  The problem was he had grown the church from almost nothing (the UMC tends to give local pastors only small dying churches and saves the good ones for seminary graduates who have put in their time) to a church of almost 1,000.

At this point the DS enters the picture (aka, District Superintendent- the person who appoints pastors to the various churches) said to him, “We are going to have to move you since this church is now too large for local pastor.  We have several Elders (pastors) who have waited a long time for an opportunity to pastor a church this size.” 

Do you see the sickness in this?

First, because the guy hasn’t been to seminary he is not worthy of continuing to pastor the very church he built almost from scratch.  The circuit riders hadn’t been to seminary and they took the UMC from the east coast to the west coast. But now the UMC puts more faith in academic credentialing than demonstrated credentialing. Something smells here. This kind of thinking isn’t an isolated event.  I know another local pastor who has grown a totally dead UMC (the conference was about to see it when another UMC asked if they could try to grow it) to a church of over 3,000 in attendance and the DSs hound him to go back to seminary if he wants to keep his church.

As a side note- prior to 1950 the average Methodist Elder (pastor) had not been to seminar but in the 1960s it was mandated that Elders go to seminary. The UMC has declined every year since 1964. Seems obvious doesn’t it? God honors demonstrated credentials more than academic credentials. Why can’t we see this?

Second, the average UM pastor has been conditioned to bide his or her time taking care of the church they are assigned to, waiting for the big break to open up for them rather than believing if they want to pastor a larger church they will have to grow it themselves.  I have actually heard pastors tell me “If I had a good church I could do great things.” Where did all the sacrificial examples of the circuit riders go? Why does a system like the UMC encourage pastors to wait around till a bigger church opens up for them to be appointed to rather than hunkering down and growing the one they’ve got? The only answer I can think of is the UMC has a deep illness that is draining the life out of it. Why would any pastor want to build a church that would someday be used as a great opportunity for some pastor to move up the declension sheet (the salary ranking of UM clergy)?

So, why this post? To say to all UMC pastors, DSs, and Bishops, WAKE UP!  This kind of thinking is draining the lifeblood out of us.  Pastors, quit waiting for that big break and start growing your church.  DSs quit moving pastors around like academically trained pawns in a timed chess game and start appointing pastors based on their demonstrated credentials like Asbury and Coke did when Methodism swept this entire continent. And Bishops, ah Bishops, how do I say this-quit playing your political games, roll up your sleeves (like some are doing) and role model for us what it means to not just be a witness of social justice but also of the personal redemptive grace of our Lord Jesus Christ. That’s what we need and only that will return us to our once, but now lost, greatness.