Fundamentalists vs anti-Fundamentalists

Scott McKnight, at Jesus Creed, is changing his blogging platform. Right now, he has posts up at both his old site and his new one (different posts). I'm not sure how it happened, but one of the posts, prominently visible, as though it was posted in the last few days, is this one, dated 17 Dec., 2008. Maybe the dating thing on the blogging environment isn't working properly, or what? Anyway it's a good blog post about fundamentalists, and how people who have switched to newer ideas can be just as opinionated and hard shelled about their new position as they were about their fundamentalist ideas. Anyway, go there for a good read, and while you're there, take not of their new URL.

Jesus Manifesto: The Interview with the Authors at Next Wave

With all the perceptions of what "Emerging Church" stands for (ie: neo-liberal, social gospel, etc), I find this a breath of fresh air. It's written from what I would broadly refer to as Emerging Church, and it brings an emphasis that many see as lacking, namely, the centrality of Yeshua -- thus, the title Jesus Manifesto. Here are some quotes from the interview that stood out to me:

Frank: We believe that the Jesus disclosed to us in the New Testament is the same Christ whom the Holy Spirit reveals today. He is the Christ of the cosmos, the Christ of Eternity, the Alpha and the Omega, as well as the Christ who lived on this earth as the quintessential human – the second Adam, or more accurately, the Last Adam – who then died, rose again, was glorified, ascended, enthroned, and now lives in His people...

...Scholars have spent a lot trying to figure out the exact nature of the erroneous teaching that captured the minds and hearts of the Colossian believers.

One of the reasons why there is so much debate over it is because Paul never directly addresses the problem. Paul’s primary way of dealing with church problems is to give God’s people a stunning unveiling of Jesus Christ. (Therein lies a valuable lesson for all church leaders.)...

...One side argues for the Jesus of justice – who is largely derived from the Gospel accounts. The other side argues for the Jesus of justification – who is largely drawn from some of Paul’s statements in Galatians and Romans.

While Len and I embrace the Jesus of justice and the Jesus of justification, our book attempts to present a Christ who is far greater, far more glorious, and far richer than simply being the Justice-Giver or the Justifier.

We feel that this third vision of Jesus is sorely neglected in our time. It’s possible to put justice and justification on the throne, and leave the living Christ out in the cold....

...With respect to your last question, I am of the opinion that the driving force of much of the house church, organic church, simple church, and missional church movements is not Jesus Christ. And so I’d like to see this changed. Hopefully, God will use the book toward that end...

Read the whole interview here...

Tribalism

Here are some gems of wisdom from the Chabad website's "Ask The Rabbi", Tzvi Freeman. Read the whole article and you'll gain a better understanding of Jewish reasons for Torah Observance, as well as some insight into aspects of sociology. This is a must-read for missiologists, emergents, anyone who wonders about the importance of culture ...

Here is but a small quote...

Sociology became a science with the publication Emile Durkheim's monograph on suicide in 1897. Durkheim was a nice Jewish boy who had studied in yeshiva to become a rabbi, as his father, grandfather and great-grandfather before him, but then left to think for himself and challenge his teachers at the Sorbonne. In his paper, Durkheim blamed most of society's woes (especially suicide) on the abandonment of tribalism. He coined the term anomie, which means a state of society where nobody knows who they are, what they have to do with one another or what on earth they're doing here. Durkheim demonstrated, through the first methodological, scientific study of a social phenomenon, that in turn-of-the-century France, suicide was the realm of the tribeless—meaning the Protestant and the agnostic. Catholics and Jews rarely committed suicide. Because they felt no anomie.

What this runaway-yeshiva boy ironically demonstrated, and others after him confirmed is that a human being without a tribe is like a polar bear without ice—he can survive, but he'll be awfully confused. It's through his relationship with the tribe that a human being knows that the earth beneath his feet is solid ground, that tomorrow is a day like today, that he is who he is and it's okay to be that way. Take the tribe away and none of that remains necessarily true.

There's a lot more. Read it for yourself...

The Gospel of the Kingdom -- Jesus Creed

Scot McKnight has been talking about the Gospel of the Kingdom as presented in Luke's two books. (his Gospel, and Acts of the Apostles). He pinpoints many things that could correct our perception of the gospel message.

Forinstance, Campus Crusade's 4 Spiritual Laws and other similar bullet-point presentations, are not theologically wrong, just not the whole story. We're not giving the broader picture, only what applies to me, and, "how can I get to heaven?"

You'll find the following reconstruction on his most recent installment. You'll recognise the Campus Crusade version, but I believe this says it all:

God loves you and everyone else and has a plan for us: the kingdom community.

But you and everyone else have a sin problem that separates you and everyone else from God, from yourselves, from one another, and from the good world God made for you.

The good news is that Jesus lived for you, died for you, was raised for you, and sent the Spirit for you - so you all can live as the beloved community.

If you enter into Jesus' story, by repentance and faith, you can be reconnected to God, to yourself, to others, and to this world.

Those who are reconnected like this will live now as God's community and will find themselves eternally in union with God and communion with others.

Those who preach this gospel will not deconstruct the church. Instead, they will participate in what God is doing: constructing the kingdom community even now.

To get access to all the posts he done on this subject, use the Kingdom tag.

Church and the financial crunch

There's not much I could say that isn't being said much better, but there's a conversation going on about it in blogdom. The blog post that started it appears to be this one (by Chris Marshal):

My truck is paid off but the gas prices are killing me. I don't drive that much and its over $300 per month, not including my wife's car. So what does this project to as a national economy? Recession seems inevitable, will it go way beyond that? A nation already ruled by fear and over-spending with no margins by individuals and the government, what will be the consequences?

How will this impact churches and mortgages and credit lines that can't be fed? As builders pass on who are the committed givers what is left? 1/2 of boomers are there to give and the other 1/2 are driven past their financial margins with consumerism and can't help. Gen X and Millenials have very little value in long term comittments, are all about instant gratification and consumerism is their native language. Commonly this group of up and comers are living on 125-140% of their income taking on exponential debt per year. What will be the result of these decisions having no margins when the shoe drops?

Will American churches go the way of their European counterparts? Becoming really funky coffee houses, restaraunts, art galleries and dance clubs. Just things I wonder about.

I was alerted to the subject by a post on Alan Creech's blog, but on Chris's latest post, there's a more complete list of who's talking about it and links to their blogs (including Alan's).

new links

It's about time I updated my site with new links, especially blogs that I've been visiting regularly.

One that I've found recently, which seems to fit right in with a lot of what I post here is, Messianic Musings, Rabbi Derek Leman's blog.

If you look at some of my earlier blogs regarding messianic/emerging hybrids, you'll know that I did a Google search about two years ago and couldn't find any blogs that were at the same time Messianic and Emerging-friendly (not that any of them were unfriendly, they just weren't into blogging -- apart from the occasional congregation that had one for posting church announcements, or those making political statements, etc.) Anyway, I did another Google recently, and one of the results had something from Messianic Musings that mentioned Scot McKnight. Anyway, have a look for yourself.

Being that I'm into Science Fiction, especially the writing of it, I also find SF Novelists a good site. It's got regular entries by a number of current authors on how they write, or what delights/peeves/affects them about writing, etc. I think I was pointed to that site by Tobias Buckell's blog, the author of Crystal Rain, and more recently, Ragamuffin. I don't know if he still has the first 10 or so chapters of Ragamuffin available for viewing. If you like reading a captivating novel half way through and putting it off indefinitely, you might want to check it out.

Anyway, that's a starter. I may add some more later.

writing science fiction during the third world war

Before I comment on the above linked title, let me share how I see world forces aligning themselves.

We seem to be seeing quite a large number of new ideas and philosophies rising up to challenge old world standards. One example which would be most obvious to anyone whose been reading my blog would be the Emergent Church scene as opposed to the traditional way of doing church. There should be enough links on this page in case you're wondering what that's all about.

For a while, I've been thinking about how much the Emerging Church movement shares with the Open Source movement in computer software.

"Open Source" might require some explanation for some of my readers. Examples of Open Source software are the LINUX operating system, Open Office.org, Mozilla Firefox, and a host of other software projects that allow the user to download the software for free, and even modify it, with the condition that whatever modifications are made become available to the whole software development community. In the same way that Emerging Church is challenging the traditional churches, Open Source is causing headaches for corporate giants like Microsoft.

Maybe I should have titled this blog, Breaking the Monopolies.

The above link to the article by Eleanor Arnason takes the concept into another area, that of the power of the State, the forces behind globalisation, free trade, etc, versus local small farmers victimised by globalisation, AIDS victims who can't pay for patented drugs (and prevented by copyright law from using the cheaper varieties that could save their lives), the activists, and even terrorist organisations. Even war is beginning to be fought differently than before. Eleanor refers to an article by William Lind, called Understanding Fourth Generation War, also interesting reading in this light.

Eleanor's essay was originally written during the early build-up to the war in Iraq. Even her update was written before the current uproar over the cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in the Danish press. The international uproar caused by a single nation's application of freedom of the press inside its own national boarders, further underlines her points.

So the alignment sort of looks like this. On one side, we have traditional church structure, big corporations with their proprietary technologies, the power of the State on which those corporations depend, WTO/G7 style globalisation, etc., all of which seem to be mutually supportive; and on the other: Emerging Church, Open Source software, people rights movements, various autonomous people groups fighting for liberation, and yes, terrorist organisations like Al Queda and Hamas.

Please don't think I'm equating Emerging Church and Open Source software with international terrorism. I'm simply observing the direction in which power and energy seem to be moving -- towards less centralisation, greater input by ordinary people, and and breaking up of monopolys. In some cases, it's for the better, and in others, for evil.

In a world like we seem to be approaching, the Emergent movement could be in a vary good position to bring the Kingdom of God into people's lives. If we're willing to leave our comfort zones (which look like their dissappearing anyway) there is untold opportunity. It's called being as wise as serpents while being as innocent as doves.

Anyway, do read Eleanor's essay, and someone, please start a discussion somewhere (my own blog doesn't seem to be attracting many of those) on what the Kingdom of God will look like in the "Brave New World" that we can see approaching.

What makes Church? 7 - Foundations

Foundational teaching is among the most important things that make up the stability and vitality of church. It can make the difference between a handful of cheery believers who think this idea of Emerging Church (or Messianic, or whatever) is a cool idea and get on for the ride; and a committed taskforce that all know who they are, what they are, and where they're going. Both groups, by our definition, are "church", but the second one will stay together much longer.

The true foundation is Yeshua. All foundational teaching will focus on Him, and will plant us firmly on who He is. In one way, it's a simple concept -- simple enough for new believers to know which direction to begin going without complicating the issue.

However, if we consider that the entire Bible, both Old and New Testaments also focuses on Yeshua, we realise that there's more to it than meets the eye. If we further realise that to understand the Old Testament helps us to understand the New, and thus roots us all the more deeply in Yeshua, we realise that we may have a ways to go to being firmly built on the Foundation.

The Messianic movement has done a valuable job in returning us to our foundations. By highlighting the Jewish source of our faith, we can now see a few things in perspective. Some may feel that they are among those complicating the issue. However, the issue became complicated long before they arrived on the scene. If anything, they're helping to un-complicate things.

We have to understand that the writers of the Gospels and the Epistles were Jewish. As revolutionary as their message was, it was rooted in Jewish culture, and in a Jewish understanding of divine revelation. But somehow, we've lost that. We no longer look at biblical revelation with a Jewish mind, but with a Greek philosopher's mind. How did this happen?

I'll answer with a short history:

To the rabbis, what Yeshua and His apostles had to say was quite radical -- radical enough for many of them to reject it outright as heresy. The early believers knew that their message was radical. The idea of Gentiles being accepted as equals without them having to become Torah observant, was extreme!

The Gentile believers knew that their new found faith was radical for their Jewish brethren. In fact, they were warned, by Paul et al, to be on guard for some of their Jewish brethren of the old school who would try to make them Torah observant. So they were. They knew they were radical.

But how radical? some of them wondered. Can we be this radical? Can we dump everything that Judaism ever taught and base our understanding on Greek style logic? By the time they were asking loud enough to be heard, the original writers of the New Testament had already passed from the scene. The majority of the Messianic population was now Gentile. So, they began to interpret the whole of the New Testament and as much of the Old Testament as they could using mathematical logic learned from Plato and Aristotle (in fact, they even began forcing Jewish believers to become Gentiles!). Because Paul sounded more Greek than the rest, and was, after all, the one who told the Gentile believers to avoid being forced into Torah observance, his epistles were understood as being foundational to Christian belief. The Gospels, because they made Yeshua sound Jewish, was understood to being targetted to Old Testament Judaism, and not to New Testament Christians. They were only good for historical value. But the real meat was the Pauline epistles.

Unfortunately, this was the theological equivalent of mistaking the window and door frames, the drywall and the roofing material for the foundation of a building, and using the foundational material for decoration.

Consider that when the New Testament writers talked about the scripture, they were referring to the Torah and the Prophets and other Old Testament writings. Only Peter, shortly before he and the other New Testament writers passed from the scene, referred to Paul's epistles as "scripture", but also said they were easy to misunderstand, and that many had twisted them out of context to their own destruction (II Peter 3:15,16). This means that one has to have a good foundational knowledge of God's revelation in Yeshua before they can understand Paul's epistles.

Yeshua said in Matthew 7, "He who hears these words of mine (i.e. the Gospels), and does them is like a man building on the foundation". Hebrews 6 gives us a list of what the foundations are, referring to them as the "elementary principals of Messiah": Repentance, faith, baptisms, laying on of hands, resurrection and eternal judgement. The Gospels open up with repentance and faith. The General Epistles, James, Peter's and John's epistles, and Jude also deal directly with faith and repentance and the other foundations.

For example, they give us a good definition of faith. The Pauline epistles talk about faith, but they don't supply a definition.

If we were to go straight to Ephesians chapter 2, and forget James 3, we would read, "By grace you are saved through faith...not of works." Later on, if we read James, who says, "Faith without works is dead," we'd think the two passages were contradictory.

In the mean time, our faith might not amount to very much. We would think, "Yeah, I believe. I said the sinner's prayer, so I'm saved. I can claim every spiritual blessing in Messiah," while living a very carnal life. Anytime someone pointed out our carnality, we'd retort, "Salvation isn't of works! I'm saved by faith!"

However, if we established our definition of what faith is by understanding the message of James, then we'd know what kind of faith Paul is talking about when he says we're saved by faith.

We're not saved by works, but real faith that saves will produce works. A life based on true faith will be readily distinguishable from a life that isn't. James and I John is full of that.

When many pollsters today tell us that the life of the average "born again" Christian looks no different from that of an average non-Christian, that tells us that we've got our foundation all wrong.

p.s. I've got a project underway, writing series of study outlines that cover foundational truth. It begins in the Old Testament, and takes us into the New. It's not complete yet, but I'm sure you could learn a lot. Click here...

This is the last in the What Makes Church? series. I haven't covered the subheading Worship yet, but there's so much good material out there on that already, and I don't feel I have anything to add to it. However, I'm sure we'll discuss issues related to this and the othe subheadings, and more besides, in future posts.

What Makes Church? 6 - leadership, authority, ministry, giftings, etc.

Just a short one today, with a few links to some useful articles regarding church.

Two are by Rick Joyner, who believes that one of the priorities that churches generally fail in is equipping the believers for ministry. Usually, only 2% of church members take any part in ministry. At Morningstar Fellowship, at the time he wrote the articles below, 15 to 20 % are involved, and he feels they have a long way to go. The two articles are:

Megatrends in the New Millennium (on Next Reformation website)

Shepherd's Astray (from Morningstar website)

Another one who has a lot to say is Andrew Strom, who believes that the next revival will be a street revival. Even calling it "house church" would be incorrect, as it will be on the streets. His website is called, Revival School. He has written an e-book called The Nine Lies of Today’s Church, available in PDF format from the adotadonai.net website. He comes on very strong, and many won't agree with everything he says. However, the last chapter qualifies the overall message by saying that to expect a church to immediately adopt all of his points (ie. selling their church building, changing the pastor's roll, trashing all programs, etc) may be impossible, and perhaps unwise to attempt. To be honest, there's nothing in it that I can say I disagree with -- though I may not come on as strongly as he -- but I would agree that the church described as the antithesis to the "9 lies" may be impossible in most places (at least in the free world) until after a major shaking has happened to Western society. We may discuss some of his points at another time in this blog.

There are also many other websites and blogs, some of which you'll find in the sidebar, that are good resources for doing church the organic or emergent way. Some of them simply offer a window into various local fellowiships. Others also offer valuable resources, as well as links to yet more.

What Makes Church? 5 - leadership, authority, ministry, giftings

In many ways, the two subheadings Leadership and Authority, and Ministry and Giftings, overlap. That's because good leadership is not only a gift, but it facilitates gifts and ministry among the members to the extant where it could be hard to tell the difference between the "full time ministers" and what we previously thought were "laity".

A few years ago, at a church conference in Thailand, I was asked to interpret for one of the speakers. He was the pastor of a Baptist church in New Zealand, who had led his church through a very interesting transition. It began as he was pondering and praying about how the church could fulfil its mandate of reaching the world, then realising that it wouldn't happen unless some drastic changes were made. The transition he took the church through was difficult, he lost many valuable members, but was worth it in the end.

Not only did the process change the structure of the church, but it redefined their concept of ministry. Under the new structure, more of the responsibilities lay with the group of elders. Some were the same who originally served on the board, but they were had a calling in one of the five-fold ministries listed in Ephesians 4. Their role wasn't so much to minister, but to lead and enable the members to minister in the five areas. The pastor reduced his own role to that of a fellow elder, albeit a leader among equals. They were only ministers in so much as they ministered. It was no longer a job that came with a title. Moreover, anyone could be a minister. It wasn't so much a matter of being chosen for a position, but simply doing what they saw needed to be done. In doing that, they had the support and mentoring of whichever elder was called to that gifting.

The whole idea of a separation between clergy and laity was obsolete. Furthermore, as a minister in this sense, it's so much easier to be humble -- no title to maintain.

As I was translating for him from English into Thai, I was becoming more and more excited by what I was hearing. I had just recently started following the Emergent conversation, and pondering what exactly is church, and what would it look like if reduced to its bare essentials. Some of the aspects, such as the definition of ministry, had been in my head and heart for many years. But now, here was someone who was actually doing it. Now, I know it's possible.

What Makes Church? 4 - Leadership and Authority...continued

I believe that Matthew 18 is key to understanding what the church and leadership in it is all about. It is very significant that this discourse begins with the following:

At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”
Then Jesus called a little child to Him, set him in the midst of them, and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. Whoever receives one little child like this in My name receives Me..."

First, we must understand that the concept of "church" didn't exist in the understanding of Yeshua's disciples. While the word appears in some English translations later in chapter 18, quoted in yesterday's blog entry, the word should be understood as "congregation", or "minyan", a concept understood in Judaism.

Judaism also understood the concept of "kingdom of God", or "kingdom of heaven" (which are synonymous terms), used in the above passage. They might not have understood exactly what Yeshua meant by it. What Yeshua meant, includes what the Pauline epistles later refer to as "church". I realise that this is something that could take up more space in explaining than I intend to do here. Instead, I'll refer you to Scot McKnight's recent blogs on the subject. I'll just say here that too often, we've separated the concepts of Kingdom and Church.

What Yeshua is referring to here isn't just the way things will be in the sweet bye 'n bye. To be sure, our life in heaven will reflect this, but what we need to grasp is that what Yeshua is saying is, leaders in the church are to be those who are the most humble, and accessible -- like children. Later in the chapter, we see, in the parable of the lost sheep, what Yeshua expects in leaders in the way of compassion, and priorities. All of this is something we, who think we're leadership material, ought to be considering very seriously.

Again, you'll find all of this discussed in more detail in chapter 12 of my online book, Culture Shock.

What Makes Church? 3 - Leadership and Authority

Continuing our discussion on Church, leading into our second subheading on leadership and authority, compare the following two passages, one from Matthew 18, and the other from the Talmud tractate, Berachot 6a:

Matthew 18:15-20:

"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church (or "the congregation"), treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
"I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
"Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."

Talmud, Berachot 6a (remember the Jewish concept of a congregation being a minimum of 10 attendants):

Whence is it that when ten assemble for prayer the Shechinah is in their midst? As it is said, "God standeth in the godly congregation" (Ps. lxxxii. 1). And whence is it that when three sit and judge, the Shechinah is in their midst? As it is said, "In the midst of the judges He judgeth" (ibid). And whence is it that when two sit and occupy themselves with the study of the Torah, the Shechinah is in their midst? As it is said, "Then they that feared the Lord spoke one with another, and the Lord hearkened and heard" (Mal iii. 16). And whence is it that even if an individual sits and occupies himself with the study of the Torah the Shechinah is with him? As it is said, "In every place where I cause My name to be remembered I will come unto thee and will bless thee" (Exod. xx. 24).

Notice the reference in both passages to the numbers two, three, and the congregation. As an aside, it's also interesting to note that Yeshua identifies Himself as the Shechinah -- which could be a clue to how the concept of the Trinity can be made to fit into Judaism.

When we look at it in the light of the two passages above, it seems clear that in Matthew 18, Yeshua was outlining the authority structure in the church along lines familiar to Jewish understanding.

For a more in depth study on this, read this ...

What Makes Church? 2 - Community and Relationship

The first component in church is community, and relationships within that community. This is the most fundamental aspect, and it is, I believe, the only one that actually defines church -- believers together in fellowship centred around Messiah. It's as simple as that. The other four headings -- authority structure, ministry and gifts, teaching, and worship -- don't define the church, but only help it become what it's supposed to be: transforming, missional, an army, a family, a "spiritual hospital" etc.

It's interesting that there is no reference in the New Testament of anyone outside of Yeshua, ever planting a church. Yeshua said in Matthew 16:13-20, "I will build my church." Other than that, there's no record of Paul, Peter or anyone else literally starting a church. What they did was call people to repentance and make disciples, and only then does the New Testament refer to the resulting group of believers as the church. (In the sense of one's ministry, I won't argue with anyone who calls themselves a "church planter". In fact, I use the term myself. In our 20th century terminology, it's become synonym for making and gathering disciples.)

Because I see community and relationship as being the only defining factor, I can look at any Christian institution, totally ignore the sign over the door, and recognise that the church exists there. Their structure doesn't define the church, but as long as there are true believers there who are in fellowship with one another, they constitute the church. It doesn't even matter if they understand that fact. Even if the official doctrines of that institution were destructive to spiritual life (if one were to follow them), as long as there is life in the hearts of the believers, and they acknowledge one another in love, it's church.

Inversely, even if they had perfectly sound teaching and had a format that encourage true fellowship, they are only the church in so far as there are believers there actually doing it.

Fellowship is what makes us the church. Whatever we can do to enhance fellowship with G-d and with one another on a spiritual level, so that we become a part of one another, will strengthen and vitalise the church. That's where the other subheadings come in.

What Makes Church?

Before I go too far into this, let's get our priorities right, maybe with a very loose paraphrase of I Corinthians 13:

If a fellowship group happens to excel in all the points that I bring up in this and coming blog entries, if they are the model of the perfect church -- but don't have love: they are no more than a bunch of futile idealists.

On the other hand, if a church is so ingrained in all the traditional ways that the building and pulpit are looked on as icons of holiness; their cannon of scripture includes Scholfield's Notes; and when Messiah returns, they believe He will actually touch down at their denominational head office; and yet the first thing you notice about them is their sincere fervent love for the Lord and for one another and they would give their lives to extend that love to the world, I'd rather attend that church than the "perfect" one, as that's the one where you'll find Yeshua.

Becoming perfect is not the rout to perfection.

If you really want to know what I feel is most important in a church, here are my eight criteria. They have nothing to do with format, leadership model, authority structure, minor doctrines like eschatology etc, what day of the week they worship etc etc. I believe they are more important than any of the other points we've discussed so far in this blog, or that we will discuss. I'd really advise you to click on the link and read them before going on with this discussion. Yet, I don't know if there is a church that excels in all eight. If I did find such a church, I would stick with that one, no matter what good things could be said about Emergent and/or Messianic etc.

Having said that, I do believe that the quickest way to becoming such a church, one that fulfils the eight criteria, could be discussed under the following five headings:

1. community and relationship
2. authority structure
3. giftings and ministry
4. foundational teaching
5. worship

I hope to discuss these in the next few entries.

However, I suppose this should come with a warning label: I am not, at present, involved in the leadership of a church, let alone an Emergent or Messianic one. I believe that teaching like this should, ideally come up from one's experience. However, I have done church planting in the past. I believe I did a few things right, but I also made mistakes. I've also been involved in the development of various churches, though none of them are what I believe a church could be. I wrote a short autobiography called My Journey So Far for the express purpose of revealing where I'm coming from in what ever I teach or impart.

Emergent plus Messianic ... P.S.

Having already said as much about the Emergent and Messianic movements as can be said in one breath, here's just one more similarity:

One feature of some Emergent groups is their use of liturgy, be it Catholic, Celtic, Anglican, whatever. When I said earlier that Emergent and Messianic was about stripping the message of what has accumulated over the centuries, that would exclude what is found to have relevancy. Many people in Emergent do find certain liturgies meaningful.

Likewise, Judaism has their seders. In that sense, a Messianic group could easily say their Shema, the Ameeda, the Passover seder, etc. or their Messianic derivitives still maintain the feel of an Emergent congregation. I've found the seders meaningful, even in an Orthodox congregation.

It's quite likely that liturgies had a bigger role in the first century church than Baptist/Pentecostal types would probably feel comfortable with. Many of the prayers are quoted in the New Testament by Paul and others. The Psalms was originally a prayer book.

But having said all that, being that I'm not Jewish myself, I would still probably choose the "free style" approach for any group that I started -- unless others in the group wanted it otherwise.

Emergent plus Messianic ... IV

We've been discussing how some of the contributions of the Messianic movement could complement Emergent. I also see how becoming a little bit more Emergent could benefit the Messianic movement.

The Messianic movement predates the Emerging Church movement and in many locations, had its beginnings in an era where American suberban middle class values were the norm. For that reason, some Messianics have inherited some of the tendencies that many other churches and ministries do that target the American middle class. That is, when they grow to a certain size, they tend to go with up-market style advertising and PR. Their TV programs offer you a gift if you'll donate so much, the brochures and magazines often have larger than life photos of the chief sporting a teethy grin (if it's a one-man or one-woman ministry), and everything seems to have a price tag.

At this point, I should try to pre-empt some possible comments that could be made (which would be in bad taste) by emphesising that this is a problem with human nature, and something we could all succomb to under financial and peer pressure. As a missionary myself, I've always had the problem of how to support myself in the ministry. Many have told me that it is perfectly justifiable to try to solicit donations for my work. I'm sure that's a path that G-d does lead many to travel, but I just don't feel it's for me ...and I tend to get turned off by too much of the Maddison Avenue approach.

The problem isn't by any means restricted to the Messianic movement (and it doesn't effect all of them either -- only certain ones). I heard one famous (non messianic) healing evangelist address a group of Bible School students where I was studying, and was deeply inspired by his personal testimony, and his desire to get more people involved in ministry. Later, I got hold of a set of his tapes from a teaching seminar on evangelism that he taught through an interpreter in Africa. I found him to be a very down-to-earth individual who inspired me very much. However, when I started getting his monthly newsletter, I was dissapointed. The side of him I saw as a student and through the eyes of an African pastor, was total lacking in his P.R. Instead, it was all about how I could have health and prosperity through, among other things, giving to his ministry. It was hard to believe it was the same person.

Perhaps it's because Emergent ministries, by their very nature, are not high-budget ventures, that they're not tempted by the latest advertising techniques. The most commerce I've seen so far are links to Amazon.com, and the occasional Google ad. What's more, anything that is of teaching value is usually offered for free.

As I've been saying, I believe that some of the most valuable teaching that the Body of Messiah needs right now comes from the Messianic movement. To be sure, there are quite a few articles and teachings that you can download for free, but there are others that are advertised as being vital to one's growth and development as a believer, or are essential to an understanding of certain Biblical texts, that come at a cost, or a high membership fee.

To me, it's like health. I like U.K. for the National Health Service. I don't think something so basic as good health should belong only to those who can pay exorbatant medical fees. Likewise, spiritual health. If something is so vital to my spiritual understanding, there should at least be something about it that can be downloaded for free, even if it's not as glossy and fine as what comes in the shrink wrapped box.

Another thing about Emergents -- at least the ones I've been following -- they all try to be, on their blogs and writings, what they are in person. And what they are is friendly, respectful and easy to be entreated (James 3:17). An example of this is a collective article entitled Response to Recent Criticisms, which I found to be a humble Christlike invitation for Emergents and non Emergents to understand one another.

I'm sorry to say that many (though not all) Messianics come across with the opposite spirit. To be sure, they've been through the worst of it as far as being misunderstood by both the Christian and Jewish communities. To be fair, I'm sure there are Emergents (though I haven't come across any) who would like to take a bulldozer to all traditional looking church buildings. It's noticeable on many websites and chat forums, that many Messianics have developed a rough edge. One gets the impression that pleasing God is not for the faint of heart.

Actually, when it gets right down to it, I agree that the life of faith is more than many make it out to be. But we're here to encourage one another in the faith, not scare one another off!

Just one more thing. It's so difficult to find a Messianic blog. There are a few, but they either represent one particular congregation or other in some American state far far away, or else they're full of pro-Israel anti Palistinian rhetoric. To be sure, I do believe there are issues to be threshed out in that field, but after a while, there's only so much that can be said before one begins repeating oneself and begins to sound tiresome.

We need a few Messianic blogs with the same flavour as the Emergent ones. That's where I hope this one will begin to fill the gap.

...and by the way, I do have a number of articles and study outlines on my website that should be valuable for a foundation in the faith.

Emergent plus Messianic ... III

Along the theme of how Emergent and Messianic are complementary, perhaps sharing a little bit of my background will shed light on where I'm coming from. A slighly more detailed autobiography can be found here. That will also answer the question of how I ended up leaning towards Emergent. The following will only explain the emphesis on Messianic.

I was born in Thailand of missionary parents (with WEC, an interdenominal "faith" mission), which I feel has contributed to my having an open mind about things. I've spent most of my life in Thailand, got married there, but for the last year or two, we've been in N. Ireland.

"Baruch" is my writing name. It incompases my actual initials (B. Ch.). However, I'm a goy (gentile) from my mother's womb (as far as I know). I don't believe it's necessary for me to look and sound Jewish to benifit from understanding Jewish roots, but I did think the name "Baruch" sounded nice, and have been using it ever since. It may seem rather ironic, though, that as a Gentile, I've had more input from Orthodox Rabbinical sources than from Messianic Judaism. I still haven't worshipped at a Messianic synagogue, but I've been plenty of times to Orthodox ones.

Apart from wandering into a Conservative Synagogue a number of times in So. Cal., a bit of contact with Jews for Jesus, and attending a Messianic conference hosted by Manny Brotman, (all back about 1976), my adventures into Judaism (Messianic and otherwise) began about 1991. Spending about a year in S. England, with time on my hands (some would say "too much time"), I decided to write a fictionalised account of the Apostle Paul (or The Emissary, Rabbi Shaul, as I later renamed him). After a while, it became obvious that I needed to do research on my character and the times he lived in. Besides bits on the Greco-Roman world, etc, I began looking at books on rabbinical literature, such a the Encyclopedia Judaica. I also bought a copy of Everyman's Talmud, the Soncino Chumash, and an ancient prayer book, among others. I did my daily Bible reading from the Soncino Chumash, which was a good experience. I also taught myself bit of Hebrew, and I can understand most Hebrew words a rabbi throws into a typical English sermon. When I arrived back in Thailand, I was surprised to find there is a large Jewish community there, and so I began attending the synagogues from time to time. I did more research in their small library, reading at various tractates of the Talmud. The rabbi there is a Lubbavitcher, a warm friendly individual. I think he must have thought I was going to apply for the possition of Shavos Goy! One of the high points was dancing around the bema holding the big sefer torah scroll during the feast of Simcha Torah.

I feel that one of my spiritual gifts is in teaching, especially in the area of Biblical foundations for faith, which I see as horribly lacking in the church as a whole. In what I studied of rabbinical Judaism, I readily saw a lot of what I feel is foundational to a New Covenant faith. A foundation in the Old Covenant is vital to understanding the new. Likewise, understanding the Gospels and Acts, the life and teaching of Yeshua and the early Apostles, are vital to truly understanding the Pauline epistles. In other words, a solid understanding of repentance, faith and baptisms etc. are vital to truly understanding the Pauline concepts of imputed righteousness and being seated in the heavenlies.

It was only after this that I started reading books by people like Daniel Juster and David Stern and others, and found that my opinions are shared by many in the Messianic movement. I believe that Messianic Judaism is making a profoundly important contribution to the Christian world in providing the means to receive the Biblical foundations so badly needed.

Emergent plus Messianic II

Another major component of Emergent is community. Church isn't defined by the Sunday meetings or the "church building", but by the believers wherever they are, seven days a week. When a group of believers meet, be it in a pub, or by accident, and begin to have fellowship in Messiah, that's Church. Judaism says that where 10 male Jews are present, they constitute a congregation, or a minyan, and they can have a worship service regradeless of whether they're in a synagogue building, or on a flight from New York to Mandalay and are otherwise complete strangers. Buried in Matthew chapters 16 and 18, we see definate parallels to the Jewish concept of congregation in Yeshua's description of church authority ("...bring it to the congregation..."). I would not restrict the number to 10, nor to only male believers, but I believe that a Jewish understand of Matthew 18 can be a valuable underlying philosophy for an Emergent congregation.

In modern Judaism, the rabbi doesn't hold authority in a congregation, but rather, is something like a hired consultant/teacher, sort of the same as with the presbyterian style of congregation in the Christian community, with the board having final authority, and an elected president. Jairus, whose daughtor Yeshua brought back to life, was a synagogue president (or nasi, or in our modern English translations, "synagogue ruler").

The big difference between first century Judaism and modern, is while it still followed the presbyterian style, the rabbis weren't necessarily paid by the congregations they served. At least those of the school of Hillel, didn't believe in earning money from their spiritual work. Rabbi Hillel, one of the most respected of early rabbis, was a water carrier. Rabbi Shaul (a.k.a. Apostle Paul) was a tent maker. They were probably just as likely to be members of their local synagogue presbyteries, but they also functioned as judges. Whenever there was a row, or a suspected minor violation of the Torah, a group of three Torah experts would be called on to sit as both judge and jury (compare this also with Yeshua's statements in Matthew 18, regarding the "two or three"). If it was a capital offence, the number would be increased to 12, or 23 as in the case of the local sanhedrins. The Great Sanhedrin had 72 members. Of course, they also taught. They'd give a comentary on the Torah for their local congregations, and they'd teach their own pupils or apprentis rabbis. A good example is Paul, who taught Timothy by this method. The pupil lived with their rabbi, and not only listened to his teaching, but witnessed his life in action, and did what they were told to do.

As a Jewish rabbi, Paul is an excellent example for an Emerging congregation. He refused to accept financial renumeration for his apostleship, but rather found work to do wherever he went, so as not to be a burneden on his new congregations. He raised a number of pupils, such as Timothy and Titus and others "the hard way", so that they became as expert as himself.

In our seminaries, we learn to "sound good" when we're preaching, because that's exactly what our professors do. We don't witness their lives in action, so we miss a lot (though chances are we're not missing much as they may just be "good talkers" themselves).

What distinguished the rabbis wasn't their credentials so much as the fact that they were trusted for their experience and track record. They were chosen to sit on a panel of judges because they could be trusted. People wanted their sons to emulate them, so they sent them to become their pupils.

While I've very loosly defined church in the first paragraph above, I also see the five-fold ministry fitting in with it in exactly the same way as the tested and tried rabbis of the first century did with their local communities. -- However with one difference. As Yeshua stipulated, he who his the least shall be first. Those who are the most expert at humbly serving others and performing the menial things like the washing of feet, will be the recognised leaders of the community.

Emergent plus Messianic

The flavour of this blog site ought to reflect a synthesis of Emergent and Messianic. For a definition of Emerging Church, the best I've seen so far is this article by Alan Creech in the February issue of Next Wave ezine. A one line statement would be, Emergent is the search for the style of doing church that is both Biblically compatible and relevent to today's culture. Some would argue that on the fringes, there are those that are less Biblically compatible than others, then again, you'll find those in every movement.

And what's Messianic? The short answer is, here's a link. Short for me, that is, but perhaps a bit long if you intend to read the entire PDF file. So, the short answer would be, a community of Jews who reguard Jesus (referred to as Yeshua -- henseforth that's the rendering I'll be using in these blogs) as being the Messiah of Israel, and therefore believe that following Him is a very Jewish thing to do. They see themselves as no less Jewish for it. Not only are ethnic Jews involved, but also Gentile (or goy) believers (like me), who recognise that Judaism has preserved many things that are valuable towards knowing God, that Christianity has lost over the years.

So, how does Emergent and Messianic mix? Both movements are a journey towards stripping the gospel message of all the Western trappings it's accumulated over the centuries, and communicating it in a way that's relevant to their respective communities, Messianic to the Jewish community, and Emergent, to whatever community one is targetting, be it Postmodern, secular, Generation X, hard-core punks, whatever ethnic minority, or any group that wouldn't be caught dead inside a traditional church building. Let's face it. No matter how much p.r. we put out, there are groups that will never be reached by the traditional churches using the methods they're using today, such as the Gay community, or the Jewish community. In that sense, the Messianic Jewish Community is Emergent.

There's a lot more I could say, which I'll save for a later blog.

No Questions Allowed

Why is it that in the church scene, if you ask certain questions, people look at you as though you just walked in without your trousers on? I mean, some questions aren't even allowed in discussion groups! I'll list a few examples -- but let me quickly say, lest you feel inclined to look at ME in that way, I am not raising these questions myself. They are the questions asked by people who presently feel alienated from today's church scene, partly because they aren't allowed to ask them, or if they do ask, they're expected to settle for a briefly worded explanation, such as, "The Bible says, blah blah blah. End of discussion." I'm talking about questions like:
-- Did Jesus REALLY die on the cross and rise the third day? (the inquirer cites either Islamic belief, or something about some deep dark secret location somewhere in France, closely kept under cover by the Catholic Church, or the Knights Templar, which is in fact the final resting place of Jesus, son of Joseph)
-- How do we know that the books of the Bible are all inspired by G-d, or if other books shouldn't have been included that weren't, or if some of the books that were, shouldn't have been?
-- How can we be so sure we don't reincarnate? What about people who remember there previous lives?
-- Why can't Christians be gay? (the inquirer either cites Bible references like John leaning on Jesus' bosom, or points out the existence of gay churches)
-- Is hell really eternal? Is it really the destination of every single person on earth who didn't choose the Christian religion?
-- Did the holocaust really happen? (inquirer cites data from Neo-Nazi sources that support their assertion that the systematic extermination of Jews during World War II didn't really happen)
...I'm sure you can think of many more.
My point is, by maintaining an environment in which such things are never to be questioned, even by the serious doubter, we're losing a whole generation, both by barring them from the front door, and by members slipping out the back.
According to an article in the WASHINGTON TIMES, October 18, 2002 FLOCK STRAYS FROM U.S. CHURCHES about a growing number of people who have lost their faith, and have decided that "their earlier choice [to follow Jesus] was no longer right", "... those who leave have often put in years, even decades, of dedicated service ... Others who 'drift away' from their earlier faith often cite logical contradictions between belief and everyday experiences ... Many are felled by a crisis of faith that sends people into agnosticism or antagonism. Others say their faith is irrelevant to their daily lives..." (I found the link to this article on the www.e-church.com blogsite)
Could it be that we've forced people to keep up the mature, confident "know-it-all" front until they've finally buckled under all the pressure? The rest of us who haven't buckled under yet, are we trying so hard to hold on to what we believe, that we refuse to entertain questions? Are we, by our heroic holding of our forts, the ones thus maintaining this stoic "club house" atmosphere?
If so, we're both locking out the current generation that badly needs to see an example of TRUE FAITH, and we're burning ourselves out in the process. If the church were a place where doubts could be freely expressed instead of buried, just maybe, that could relieve some of the pressure, before some of us reached a breaking point in our walk with G-d. That would also make us better prepared to be honest and open and "ready to give a defence to everyone who asks ... a reason for the hope that is in [us], with MEEKNESS and FEAR" (I Peter 3:15). Meekness is something we certainly lack when asked uncomfortable questions, though we seem to be in pleanty of fear -- although I think FEAR OF G-D is what Peter had in mind, not the other.
But the key word I want to dwell on is "true faith". Mental assent to Christian precepts, however hard we cling on to them to maintain our corporate identity, is not true faith. Many of us began with true faith, but ended up in mental assent.
Faith is the opposite of fear. Real faith won't fear what questions people will ask. Mental assent does.
"Without faith, it's impossible to please G-d, because those who approach Him, must believe that He is, and that He rewards those who diligent seek Him" (Hebrews 11:6)
Real faith leads us into relationship. It's a seeking for Him, and having found Him getting to know Him. Knowing Him is a so much more secure place to be. That, of course, leads to opening up to one another. Mental assent only maintains status quo, and does nothing to break down barriers to relationship.
Faith is simple, but for many of us, keeping ourselves in faith, as opposed to mental assent can be an uphill battle at times. The secret is to keep at it. That's what the "good fight of faith" is (I Tim 6:12). The trouble with many of us is we've lost sight of that battle long ago, and have reverted to fighting to maintain our mental assent.
Faith is dependable. You can lean on it. We're afraid to lean on mental assent, out of fear of finding out that what we've held on to all this time wasn't real after all. To find out that G-d doesn't come through when we need him, or that Jesus really didn't rise from the dead 2000 years ago, would simply shatter our self identity. Should anyone actually venture to lean on their faith for any reason, mental assenters always gasp, "Presumption!" (what presumption really is, is thinking you have faith when all you have is mental assent).
Faith keeps us in the real world -- which is filled with people asking the kinds of questions I've listed above. Mental assent isn't strong enough to face the real world, so it keeps us sheltered in a fantasy world where those kinds of questions can't enter -- where those honestly asking those kinds of questions wouldn't want to enter anyway.
Because it's founded in the real world, Faith is based on the actual fact of what Jesus did for us in the real world. Mental assent is afraid, deep down inside, that if one were given the opportunity to travel backwards in time 2000 years minus 33, one just might not find the resurrected Yeshua of Nazareth showing Himself alive to His disciples. Rather, one might find either a Jesus who's still dead, or a Jesus who mysteriously avoided death, only to die naturally many years later, or someone who is the antithesis of who we believe in today. Therefore mental assent goes out of its way to avoid any argument that would possibly lead to that conclusion.
Mental assent is fearful that maybe what we believe in isn't true after all, but must still cling to it for dear life, because ones identity is wrapped up in it. We've been in it too long. We've gained a measure of status in the Christian community, and to keep it requires us to cling on to the tenants of the faith.
So, if we suspect that what we've been living on is mental assent, not faith, what do we do?
If we suspect that we're quickly losing our grip on this whole thing, and about to go the way of many others, what is the urgent first step?
Yeshua said, "Seek and you shall find...", "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness..."
If we seek Him, we'll find Him. But Hebrews 11:6, referred to above, says we must believe that He's there to be found.
But how do we believe when all we have is mental assent?
Often, we have just a teeny weeny bit of faith, but it's buried under a giant pile of mental assent. "G-d has dealt to each one a measure of faith" (Romans 12:3). The secret is to dig it out.
Some hints how to look for it:
Romans 10:17, "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by a word regarding Messiah." That can come from the Bible, or from a spoken word inspired by G-d.
Another place to look for it: In the New Testament, we often find faith listed after "repentance": i.e. -- Mark 1:15 "REPENT and BELIEVE the good news"; Hebrews 6:2 "...REPENTANCE from dead works, FAITH towards G-d...", a few places in Acts and others as well.
Repentance can involve a lot of different things depending on who you are. For the rich young ruler, it meant selling everything he owned, giving it to the poor, and following Yeshua. Yeshua required him to give up all his comfort and all his status in the world he lived in, and follow His idea of reality.
What about our status and comfort of the church world we live in? What about all the benefits we're clinging on to by holding our mental assent? ...our "good old boy" image? ...our title of "reverend"?
Maybe for some of us, this means throwing everything we thought we believed up in the air, being honest with G-d, and saying, "If you're real, which just a tiny bit of me genuinely believes you are, take all this and piece it all together again as faith. In the process, I'm willing to give up my standing in this pretend world I've been living in, and lose myself in the real world."
You won't really be lost, because the real world is where G-d lives.