John H Armstrong

Why I Am Persuaded the ACT 3 Cohort Groups Will Help in the Making of Unique Leaders

The ACT 3 Missional-Ecumenical Cohort groups are designed to provide a small group environment where learning is genuinely linked with community. There are numerous ways to teach and each way has its own merit. But not all forms of teaching produce the same fruitfulness. I have taken thousands of classroom hours over the course of my lifetime. I have heard thousands of sermons. I have taught, as a graduate level instructor, at least several hundred students. I have also preached several thousand sermons. I believe that what I remember best is from the material I taught that involved me the most directly in the learning and teaching experience itself. 

In forming the ACT 3 M-E Cohort groups I gave a great deal of thought to educational research about learning. We know, for example, that we remember about 10% of what we hear. This percentage rises to 30% when we hear and see. This is why educators utilize various graphics and visuals to improve the teaching of their students. But when something is spoken, seen and then practiced, especially in a context where the learner is deeply involved, even to the point of sharing in the teaching and practice of the content directly, then the number rises to as high as 80%. 

I learned this directly by teaching in the classroom over the last fifteen years or so. I prepared well and taught with all my heart and soul. Last summer I looked back over the  number of church leaders that I had taught in seminary and graduate school over the course of these recent years and asked, “What percentage of my students were genuinely transformed, so much so that the vision I invested in them really stuck and transformed them and their leadership?" My answer was 10-15%. I came to the conclusion that I could no longer teach the content of my vision–content rooted in the three core principles that I wrote about last week–unless I could see something like 80-90% of my students becoming serious practitioners of the missional-ecumenical vision. 

Some advisers suggested that I should teach this vision by exclusively using the vast resources of the social network and webcasting/webinars. Their arguments employed two key points: (1) My time and health would be stretched too thin by going to various places and investing so much time (an average of 32-36 hours in face-to-face meetings) in small groups, and; (2) A larger number of people could be taught more quickly by using the Internet alone. These are both good points. I carefully weighed them as I asked the Lord to guide me into the last phase of my mission.

While I believe these Internet-based tools should be used, thus they will be a major supplemental means for teaching and advancing the M-E Cohorts, I also believe deeply in the principle of incarnation. People must interface with those who teach them and with those who learn with them. This means discipleship training is best when it is rooted in the experience of life and community. I believe this community learning experience can never be replaced by these supplemental means. The Internet can bring people into a Cohort group and it can be used to help students while they are learning and after they have moved on to advanced stages of development but it can never replace face-to-face encounter that takes discipleship seriously. 

After completing my first M-E Cohort group April 17 I am more convinced than ever that this is true. A new group will begin in a few weeks, with 20-25 members. A group will begin in Philadelphia on September 20. And another group will begin in Wheaton on September 17. It is likely that I will have dates for a group in Phoenix within two weeks. 

I will travel to Dallas at the end of this month to explore the opportunity to begin a group there in the fall. 

Last Thursday (May 3) I met with leaders in the St. Louis area, both in Illinois and Missouri. It is possible a group will form there in the fall but if not then perhaps in early 2013. I really did not know how this conversation would go until I went to St. Louis and spent time with several people. The interest seems significant enough to pursue this area as a possible region for a group this year. I am also in conversation with some folks in Raleigh-Durham about a group that would begin this fall or early next year. 

I will form an ACT 3 M-E Cohort Group of 15-25 people wherever there is a sufficient minimum of people who will commit to the group. The first step is to meet/talk with several leaders who are willing to be “point” for finding friends who will form such a group. I am not investing money in advertising but rather going from person-to-person, place-to-place. The only requirement for considering a M-E Cohort group is for you to contact me and talk about determining if you have the number of people to invite me to come. 

The freedom of this approach is a great blessing for me. I do not try to force a door open, but listen and see what doors God is pleased to plainly open. If he opens it then it is open and if not then why push harder? 

If you are interested in joining such a group, or in helping me form one in your area, then please contact me directly at: JohnA1949@gmail.com. I will respond as soon as possible. 

 

Who Should Become an ACT 3 Cohort Member?

The most important question you should ask, if you have any interest in our new ACT 3 Missional-Ecumenical Cohort program, is this: "Who should invest the time and money in this process and apply to join an ACT 3 Cohort group?"

Alcoholics Anonymous operates on a rather simple philosophy with a bare bones amount of structure. To join an AA Group you must have a problem, namely the abuse of alcohol. Second, you must be willing to pay the price to change your behavior by investing your time, and thus to some extent your money, in a group process where there is real learning, accountability and life-long change. Finally, you must be willing to use the famous Twelve Steps to grow toward sobriety and then to maintain that sobriety. 

The ACT 3 Missional-Ecumenical Cohort groups operate in much the same way. To join a group you must have a recognized need. You must know that you need to grow deeper in your interior spiritual life. If you have this need then you must desire to join a group that will seek to help you improve your practice of spiritual life in the Trinity. Second, you must desire to enter into the prayer of Jesus in John 17 in order to become an answer, not a barrier, to his expressed intention for unity. Third, you must desire to understand missional theology (our "sentness" which comes from God the Father) and want to learn how to live this theology out very practically in your personal and corporate lifestyle. 

The Cohort model is thus built on these three core principles. We call these our "Three Steps." 

1. You must desire to develop your interior life in a rich texture of spiritual formation that draws from the whole Christian tradition so that you can learn how to intentionally seek after God with your whole heart, mind, soul and strength (Matthew 22:37). 

2. You must enter into the unity prayer of our Lord Jesus (John 17:20-23), a prayer for our relational oneness, and strive with all your heart to truly and faithfully love all your brothers and sisters as modeled by Jesus (John 13:34-35). 

3. You must seek to grasp what is meant by missional theology and grow into a clear understanding of why it is vitally important in order that you will practice the spiritual art of missional leadership in your local church or mission context (John 20:21).

Each ACT 3 Cohort meets around these three core principles and the curriculum is built upon it. Those who are mentored in an ACT 3 Missional-Ecumenical Cohort group will continue to learn after their eight month training process is completed. Some will be called and trained to become mentors who can facilitate new ACT 3 Cohort groups as the Lord raises them up in the coming years. The mentors will be coached and then paid to lead a group(s) and thus they will become a part of the extended mission of ACT 3. 

You can learn more about these newly forming ACT 3 Cohort groups on our home page.

 

Transitions: The ACT 3 Cohort Groups and Our New Web Presence

I am presently working on developing a new blog site as well as a new ACT 3 web site. I am also working on developing a separate site for the ACT 3 Missional-Ecumenical Cohort Groups. This site will provide information about this new training program but it will also provide an opportunity for students and graduates to enter private subsections of the site for updates and important on-going interaction. Graduates will become part of a life-long learning process through this site, and learn about future gatherings, which we will provide to those who finish this course. 

Our first ACT 3 Cohort class graduated this last Tuesday, April 17. Thirteen adults completed the first Cohort that we've done. We began last October in a classroom on the Wheaton College campus. I am praying for hundreds more to follow these thirteen in the next five years. I am also working to find and equip a group of very gifted leaders who can facilitate these groups across the country as this ministry grows. The goal is to find and teach lay and pastoral leaders in three core areas of faith and practice. These are:

1. The growing development of the interior life.

This can be called spiritual formation but the term is becoming overused these days. The central idea is that no one can influence (spiritually and eternally) anyone else unless their own soul is deeply formed by the Trinity.

2. The importance and practice of deep, relational and biblical ecumenism.

This is not simply an intellectual idea or a set of doctrinal beliefs. It is a learned behavior and practice that we believe can be taught and practiced only in community and real partnerships.

3. The purpose of helping churches and missions understand and practice what is called missional theology. 

We do not believe that the missional church movement, or missional theology, is a passing fad. It is a deep, fresh discovery (the last twenty years or so) that has immense implications for the life of all Christians in the new millennium. 

Each ACT 3 Missional-Ecumenical Cohort Group exists to fulfill the purpose of this mission: "to equip leaders for unity in Christ's mission." There are several ways that we do this but the ACT 3 Cohort Groups have become the primary way that we will do this in the coming years. I will teach/facilitate in a number of cities, discipling leaders who can live and pass on these great truths, and then teach others to do the same by becoming ACT 3 facilitator/teachers. ACT 3 will become a central catalyst for this process of training. We will not control this process but we will brand it and protect it. Each group will be unique since no single group is like another and each facilitator will lead the group differently. We welcome diversity in unity. These groups will thus consist of men and women, lay and clerical, Protestant and Catholic (and Orthodox), young and old, formally educated and non-formally educated. There is no requirement for being in a group but a deep desire to be equipped in these three areas, or core commitments. If a person believes this group can help them become the spiritual leader that God desires them to become then this group just might be right.

Next week I will write more. For now I am buried in planning and creating at least five more groups over the next few weeks. (There will be two in Chicago, as well as one in Philadelphia, Dallas, Phoenix and maybe St. Louis.) Please pray. Your support, interest and gifts will help us reach this goal of training a significant number of missional leaders.  

As we rebuild our web presence and develop these new Cohort Groups would you please pray for me and those who work with me at ACT 3? We are small but we have a big idea that we believe God gave to us. We believe that we can pour money into people and training, not buildings and programs. We believe the church desperately needs such leaders right now and we are committed to doing our part in finding and training these leaders. 

You can learn more about the Missional-Ecumenical Cohort Groups, at least for now, on the home page (enter through the icon of The Unity Factor) of ACT 3. 

Burning Questions for Missional Christians

Christianity began as a tiny movement of Jews who believed that God had raised Jesus from the dead. They spread this message to Jews and Gentiles and planted churches across the Roman Empire in the first three centuries of the common era. There is abundant evidence that these churches were generally small and that most congregations numbered something like 30-70 people. Issues regarding how to develop and govern these churches arose over time. It seems apparent that there is no extant blueprint that has been passed on to us regarding how this should be done down through the centuries. Christianity seems incredibly adaptable to various cultures and for this reason it could spread into all cultures. 

What we do know is that in spite of many faults the church acquired it eventually provided the basis for a new era of learning, industry and civil order that arose from the impact of the church upon society. In the sixteenth century the Reformation not only divided the church in the West but it led to renewal in the Catholic Church. Eventually this resulted in a great rise in missionary activity from both Protestant and Catholic sources. By the twentieth century a worldwide exportation of products and ideas followed and this global expansion opened the door even wider for global missions. At the same time Europe's civilization began a long, slow slide toward secularism. There is an almost astonishing correlation between the decline of births with the decline of the church and its influence throughout Europe. The question remains what this will mean for North America. Will we follow this European pattern? There is growing evidence that we might follow Europe but there is considerable reason to think that America could follow a very different model. 

By 2050 Patrick Johnstone says that less than half of Europe will claim any adherence to Christianity. This leads Johnstone to conclude that there are "uncomfortable parallels between the situation in Europe today and the collapse of the Greco-Roman civilization of antiquity."

But here in America the situation does not entirely parallel that in Europe. Two centuries of Protestant immigration and numerical growth combined with periodic revivals have shaped a different kind of situation. Here church and state were never connected in the same way. The church in America was free to innovate and develop new ideas. (This is a double-edged sword I realize!) The result of these developments is a Christianity that has a huge variety in church life, teachings and worship styles. In the midst of this chaos some very good things have emerged at various times in our history. Cults have grown, for sure, but so have genuine Christian churches and movements that have given us both health and numerical growth. 

The rise of non-Christian immigration, in recent decades, and the gains of the non-religious (or "nones") in our religious demographics, makes things extremely problematic for the church going forward. (We are in a period of church decline, make no mistake about this fact.) The influence of secularism remains strong, especially in higher education and among the culturally elite. The problems these changes present will not go away anytime soon. But the separation of church and state makes for a unique opportunity for thoughtful Christians to emerge into new missional thought and practice in America. Let me explain.

Could a new kind of civilization, one not rooted in empire or in dependence upon religion linked with the state in any form, arise in the twenty-first century? Simply put, could a new kind of Christianity emerge that produces a more tolerant, less proud and more deeply caring expression of public faith? Could a vigorous, but less politically motivated, Christianity take the place of a church deeply engaged in culture wars and partisan, divisive bickering? 

I do not believe that we know the answer to these questions quite yet. There are signs that give me hope but there are signs that I find deeply troubling. This leads me to ask the question I've been asking for some years now:

"What will Christianity look like in North America when the impact the church once had upon the culture is gone and Christians must then learn how to live meaningfully in a setting where they do not get to directly determine the cultural outcomes of their society?"

How should Christians prepare for this future? 

I believe we need to train leaders who are genuine missional-ecumenists. These will be leaders who grasp the central importance of Jesus to all of life. Such missional faith is not privatized religion. It must be very public. But it is not public in the way we've known it in the past. It is not boisterous and in your face about its truth claims. What we need, especially in the face of religious pluralism, is a developed imagination produced by the Holy Spirit. This developed, Spirit-filled imagination, will guide is in knowing how to proceed in our "brave new world." Without this we will not thrive in being faithful to Christ's mission in the decades ahead of us. With it then who knows what kind of civilization might we become under God's grace? 

One thing I am sure about in asking these kinds of questions. We cannot go back. The America I knew as a child is gone. Political elections, revival campaigns, new church plants, and a myriad of other religious and social solutions, will not bring back that America. We cannot work ourselves out of this new diverse context. It is here to stay. The question is how the church will respond and what our role will be in a new American reality? 

A New Understanding of Mission and Evangelism

Since 1982 there has been only one official statement of the World Council of Churches (WCC) on mission and evangelism. Evangelicals have written their own statements and produced their own efforts at unity in mission. Now, in 2012, the WCC's Commission on World Mission and Evangelism (CWME) is preparing another statement to invoke a new understanding of mission and evangelism amidst our changing world and divided ecclesial contexts. This new statement comes at a unique time in Christian history. For nearly sixty years evangelicals and historic churches have been enmeshed in deep opposition to one another, especially when it came to defining and understanding Christian mission in the world. In the past five years there has been a growing thaw in this impasse. I welcome it for the good of all Christ's people. 

The statement, titled “Together Towards Life: Mission and Evangelism in Changing Landscapes”, will be presented at the WCC 10th Assembly in Busan, South Korea, in 2013 once it is approved by the WCC Central Committee. This potentially landmark document draws on insights gleaned from Protestant, Evangelical, Orthodox and Roman Catholic mission theologies. What is at work here, I believe, is missional thinking, thinking that is now permeating the whole global church. 

The draft of the statement was recently shared at the CWME pre-assembly event taking place in Manila, the Philippines from 22 to 27 March. An extremely helpful video was posted by the WCC last week that explains what the purpose of this effort is all about.

“The statement aims to bring new issues and convictions to the upcoming WCC assembly, since the concepts of mission and evangelism have changed significantly during the last three decades,” explained Rev. Dr Jooseop Keum, CWME secretary, at the event in Manila.

The International Missionary Conference (IMC) was integrated into the WCC in New Delhi, India in 1961. Subsequently, the WCC developed a statement on its role in mission titled “Mission and Evangelism: An Ecumenical Affirmation.” The new statement will succeed that document, first issued in 1982. The late Lesslie Newbigin, who lived as a bridge between the WCC and the evangelical world, remains a powerful influence in this dialogue. 

Jooseop Keum said, “The statement will not replace the 1982 affirmation on mission and evangelism. It would be another statement, which will seek a broad appeal, even wider than WCC member churches and affiliated mission bodies, so that we can commit ourselves to fullness of life for all."

Some of the themes from the statement discussed at the conference included a theological framework describing the mission of the Holy Spirit (missio Spiritus), embracing dynamism, transformation and diversity in mission. There were reflections on the salvation of humanity and creation together, bringing ecological and environmental concerns into the mission statement. Themes related to health and healing, migration and economic globalization were also addressed. Again, evangelicals have engaged in this kind of theology for several decades now and their voices are blending with others from the global church. 

The participants in Manila discussed the concept of renewed commitment to evangelism with humility and respect, examining how to communicate the gospel in today's world. Revisiting the relationship between mission and church remains one of the major themes from the statement being discussed at the event. One can only pray that the result of this will be something that fosters further cooperation and deeper commitment to Christ's mission. I believe this is exactly what is happening thus I welcome this present dialogue while I watch carefully to encourage everyone involved to never surrender the proclamation of the good news to all people everywhere. 

 

Defining Ministry in These Times Is the New Question for Us All

On Saturday, February 25, I had the privilege of teaching about 35 (mostly) young adults at City Church San Francisco. The program I taught was connected with the Newbigin House of Studies, which is a wonderful new program for training lay leadership. It also includes a seminary program for urban church planters and pastors linked with Western Seminary in Holland, Michigan. Western is a seminary that is affiliated with the Reformed Church in America, my own denomination. 

I cannot tell you how thrilled I was to teach missional-ecumenism to this eager group in San Francisco. I met Christians who have been in the faith for less than two years who are already mature in their thinking and missional practice. They are living out the faith beyond what I have seen in most Christians that I’ve encountered around the country. This is why I am so excited about the future. The number of such young Christians leaders is not large but their depth and vision is strong. They are light years ahead of where I was in my 20s and 30s. They will need this depth and wisdom to navigate the future. I am committed to serving them to make a difference for that future. 

Over lunch, on this particular sunny and gorgeous Saturday in San Francisco, I ate outside the church office on a roof top at a picnic table. (What a sight in February!) I spent some time with one young married couple in particular. The couple has been engaged in vocational pastoral ministry for several years (seminary trained with a degree) but has recently stepped out of this role for several reasons. I asked this young brother to write to me. The following email (with appropriate changes) is what I received:

 

Dear John:

I write today thinking that what I say is clearly related to some of what you were talking about on Saturday, and also to some of the political vs. missional issues that you raised in your recent blog. What follows is something I wrote to my wife after we decided to leave "ministry." Of course that is just vocational ministry we left. We are excited about the fact that we might actually get to do ministry now.  She had mentioned feeling guilty, like we were turning our back on God by leaving my paid pastoral position. This is what I wrote to her:

"It feels like there is an imposter claiming to be the bride of Christ. She wears a similar veil so that it is often difficult to tell the difference until you come close and begin to lift it and rather than finding safety, compassion, and embrace you find protocol, judgment and exclusivity. I feel like our decision to move on is a desire to experience the true bride where vulnerable intimacy, unconditional embrace, and true rest exist and where protocol is not in charge except for the protocol to love. What is additionally discouraging is knowing that I have been seduced by this imposter and tried to entice others into her arms, explaining away her institutional nastiness while redirecting attention to her surface-level ‘pretty gown.’  From my time living behind this veil, I have seen many others who are much more beautiful than us on this side, who possess the characteristics of Christ and his bride much better than we (those who claim to be the church) do, even though they are not members of this visible/physical body.  I think our decision to move on is a longing to celebrate with all those who possess the characteristics of the true bride and to cleanse ourselves from much of the nastiness that is contained and left un-dealt with behind the veil."

This word to my wife came after a stretch in which we were both feeling discouraged in my vocational ministry role which eventually led us to our decision to leave.  Like I said, my wife felt especially guilty that we were turning our backs on God and the church, and I tried reassuring her that what we were turning our backs on was the institutional elements that have claimed the title "church.” What we were longing for and seeking by our decision was, in fact, God and his true church, which does partially still exist in the "institution" of the church that claims that title.  Since making the decision, we have really grown in our excitement to serve and minister to our community. We are not feeling the awkwardness of being accountable to a job description.  We love the church, but the present view of what church is, (not having read your book yet) is too small, and not only too small, but in many ways, simply wrong.  This is true in a similar way to what you explained when you walked with African-Americans and realized how racist you really were. I never felt sexist in any way but it took my wife to show me the ways that the church still stifles and even dehumanizes women. Lord have mercy, Christ have mercy. Feel free to use these words.

Blessings,

Name Withheld

 

Once again a young man and woman have shown me a great deal and encouraged me to press on in teaching this vision of missional-ecumenism everywhere I can. Pray for me and what I do to add something of faith and virtue to the lives of such young leaders who will have an incredible impact on the future of the church in America. 

 

The Way of the Cross Is Dialogue

Last fall I began my first ACT 3 Missional-Ecumenical Cohort Group. This group consists of fifteen men and women who are deeply committed to learning how to be practitioners of what I call missional-ecumenism. They have committed themselves to reading over 1,500 pages of printed text, meeting for four whole (long) days spread out over eight months, to small group dialogues and to interaction via social media. I have learned a whole lot more than I've taught in the past six months. I have also seen a number of things that need to be altered to make the ACT 3 Cohort Groups more effective. These students have encouraged me and helped to build a foundation for future groups. On April 17 this first class will graduate from the program. Then our second year begins in September-October. A group may be coming to a city near you. 

If you would like to learn a lot more about these groups go to ACT 3 and check out the material about the groups on our home page. This link will take you into a series of three videos and a number of documents explaining the group and what is required, etc. We have scheduled ACT 3 Cohort Groups for Chicago, Philadelphia and Phoenix for this fall. We may also have groups in Washington, D.C., St. Louis, Dallas and San Francisco. The first three are 99% certain. The other cities are being determined between now and June 1. Dates will be available in June for each location where we can have a Cohort Group in 2012-13. Again, go to the site and click on "The Unity Factor" to learn more. 

One of my current students, Sharon Shafer, has written a blog about something she learned in the ACT 3 Cohort process about the cross and relational dialogue. This blog will give you an idea of how one person thought very deeply and faithfully about the missional church and unity and then put her ideas down in a clear and succinct way. I am so proud of Sharon for thinking and reflecting deeply about mission. Check out her post. You will get a great idea of some of the ways people learn to think because they share in this learning process together. 

The Santorum Debate and the Missional Church

On Monday, February 27, R. Albert Mohler wrote on his blog site. www.albertmohler.com, a post titled: “The Santorum Predicament: A Sign of the Times.” It was not an endorsement of Santorum but a rational and reasonable reflection on why the media is so deeply troubled by the man’s candidacy. The bottom line, says Dr. Mohler, is that the media really believes Santorum means what he says about theology and culture and thus they are profoundly appalled by him.

Here is some of what Mohler said:

Keep in mind that Rick Santorum has said a great deal, and is still talking. In a world accustomed to bland politicians, Santorum breaks the mold. He admires conviction politicians, and he aims to be one. He speaks his mind, and then keeps on talking. On crucial issues of a moral nature, Santorum not only states his position, he explains it in detail and then goes on to present his convictions in the form of an argument. He is willing to make comprehensive statements of cultural analysis and sweeping moral judgments.

He talks of moral issues — shockingly — in terms of right and wrong. He believes that marriage has been undermined by cultural confusion and that marriage can only mean a union of a man and a woman. He is a stalwart defender of human life — opposing abortion, arguing for the prosecution of abortion doctors, and warning that the widespread use of prenatal testing will lead to even more abortions.

When moral conservatives reveal their reasoning, the elites hear the launch of a new Inquisition. It is simply incomprehensible to them that sane, rational, educated people might still believe in the Father of Lies. When Catholic Rick Santorum speaks theologically at Catholic Ave Maria University, the secular elites go into toxic shock. The same would be true of an Evangelical politician who would speak theologically of such issues at a truly evangelical college. Speak on love and you will not be in much trouble, but admit that you believe in the Devil and the press corps will go into apoplexy.

I believe Mohler understands what is going on culturally very clearly. My problem is not with his analysis. I agree with him. My problem is with his solution(s). Let me explain

We have undergone a huge cultural shift in my lifetime. We have become an increasingly secular and non-religious society. Every survey you study reveals this to be the case. While the New York Times does not speak for “every man or woman” in the land (probably not even a majority) it does represent a cultural and social direction that the majority of younger Americans are now following. My generation still wages the cultural war and seems to believe that we can win this war by fighting political battles through direct public confrontations before cameras and the press. Santorum speaks of moral positions that many of us believe for good and compelling reasons. But when he speaks as a Catholic Christian, in a presidential race, of these same cultural issues, or social “hot buttons,” it creates a whole new form of skirmish in a long-term culture war that we have been publicly waging since 1976. In fairness to Senator Santorum he did not launch this war nor did he set out to make this central to his campaign. But he has spoken, at times, with less than reasonable care. (I'm thinking here of his reference to how JFK presented his Catholic faith publicly and Santorum saying he wanted to "throw up." Not the kind of presidential response that works well in the modern age.)

Assume, whether you agree with his views or not, that Santorum’s moral views (with perhaps room for disagreement among Protestant evangelicals re: birth control) are correct. Assume further, which we should, that he is not only entitled to hold them but to speak publicly about them as a candidate for the White House. And assume that he wins the presidency, which is more possible than those on the far left might think. My question for Christians and churches is simple: What has fundamentally changed in America? 

Well, for one thing conservatives of deeply moral conviction would feel a lot better about the leader of their country. And some presidential decisions that do not require Congressional approval would be reversed and some kinds of abortion would even be stopped. This is no small feat. But I have a more pressing question for my Christian friends. Have we moved the conversation and culture any closer to understanding and living a life of faithful (real) discipleship? Or have we won a shallow campaign to “restore” our values in a culture that has clearly been moving away from those values at a fairly consistent pace since 1990? Have we done anything, through a Santorum victory, to regain the next generation for the gospel, the generation that is under 35? 

Here is where the designs and devices of the conservative effort to transform moral values and practice fails. We might, and I would be happy if we did, decrease the number of abortions. We might even get some judicial changes that could (a very big assumption here) successfully challenge Roe v. Wade down the road. But would all this money, time and effort over the next eight-plus months actually help Christians and the church to effectively accomplish the missional mandate of Christ?

I have no qualms about Christians debating and engaging in politics. I have no doubt at all that Christians should educate themselves about issues and vote. I have no question that Christians should run for office and work for justice and mercy in the public arena. I am thus not appealing here for leaving the public space to secularism by simply going home to our Christian intellectual and spiritual ghettos, which happen to be disproportionately middle-class and white. 

What I am asking is very simple: “Is it good missional strategy, in a culture where the shift away from the moral values of our near past has already taken place, to spend so much money, time and energy on framing our shared public life in these terms?” These terms sound like moral campaigns, if not moral crusades. Young Christians are not going to fight these battles, at least not in large numbers. Most young churches are not attracted to them at all? Why? They understand that the culture war was almost over before it started. Why? Because it was over when people inside the church did not line up their actual lives in public with how they lived at home and in their communities. It was over because the post-War generation had already moved away from the sexual morality of the distant past and embraced Enlightenment secularism inside the church.

So are we defeated? Not at all. I find young Christian leaders all across America have a new hope for the church. But this hope is not shaped by politics and campaigns. It is shaped by learning how to love their neighbors, their cities and even their enemies. 

There is one line in Albert Mohler’s blog that jumped out at me. While I type these words on a Monday morning in San Francisco I am looking out my hotel window at a large billboard encouraging men to get a free HIV test if they’ve recently met a “new love” in their life. Each day I have been here I have seen that sign as soon as I open my curtains in the morning. It has powerfully reminded me of the changes in our culture that are not going to be turned back by an election. In fact, they are not likely to be turned back by some type of revival, as we’ve known them historically. This culture has fundamentally changed, the values of millions of people are different and large numbers of people are not going to be compelled to embrace conservative views on moral issues because of who is or is not the next president. 

But note again that Mohler said, “Speak on love and you will not be in much trouble, but admit that you believe in the Devil and the press corps will go into apoplexy.”

What an interesting and significant point. My mind moved seamlessly to St. Paul’s words as I thought about this. I read the following:

⁸ Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. ⁹ The commandments, “You shall not commit adultery,” “You shall not murder,” “You shall not steal,” “You shall not covet,” and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” ¹⁰ Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law (Romans 13:8-10).

And then the words of the apostle John came to my mind as well:

¹⁶ And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them. ¹⁷ This is how love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment: In this world we are like Jesus. ¹⁸ There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment.

And these words of St. Paul struck me as well:

¹³ You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love. ¹⁴ For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Galatians 5:13-14).

Speak on love? How much better to not only speak about love but to actually demonstrate it. The younger generation, the generation that is not engaging in this cultural-political struggle with vested interest, responds deeply to real love. My time in San Francisco has underscored that again in a most powerful way. I actually believe Dr. Mohler may have said more than he realized in this one sentence. I know it got me thinking about missional church and ecumenism in a whole new contemporary context.

 

A Question My Friend Posed to Christopher J. H. Wright

The Rev. Dr. Christopher J. H. Wright is one of the most respected Christian thinkers and leaders in the world. I have followed him for years, especially when he began to work closely with John R. W. Stott.

Chris was born in Belfast, Northern Ireland, in 1947. His parents were missionaries in Brazil, though Chris as the youngest son was born after they came back at the end of the Second World War. He grew up in Belfast and was nurtured as an Irish Presbyterian. He studied classics at Cambridge in the 1960s, and then started his career as a high-school teacher in Grosvenor High School, Belfast. In the 1970s he studied for his doctorate in Cambridge, England, in the field of Old Testament economic ethics; his book from this work was published as God’s People in God’s Land (Eerdmans and Paternoster). He was ordained in the Anglican Church of England in 1977 and served as an assistant pastor in the Parish Church of St. Peter & St. Paul, Tonbridge, Kent, England.

In 1983 Wright moved to India with his wife, Liz, and four children to teach at Union Biblical Seminary (UBS) in Pune for five years. At this time he and Liz were mission partners with Crosslinks, an evangelical Anglican mission agency. While at UBS he taught a variety of Old Testament courses. In 1988 he returned to the U.K. as academic dean at All Nations Christian College, an international training center for crosscultural mission. He was appointed principal there in September 1993 and held that post for eight years. In September 2001 Chris was appointed to his present role as the international director of the Langham Partnership International. It is in this role that I was afforded the opportunity to briefly meet Chris after he led the memorial service for John R. Stott at College Church in Wheaton on November 11, 2011. Chris served as the Chair of the Lausanne Theology Working Group from 2005 – 2011, and Chair of the Statement Working Group at the Third Lausanne Congress, 2010, which produced The Cape Town Commitment. The Cape Town Commitment is, in my opinion, the most important evangelical statement of mission and theology in my lifetime. I consider it a great support for what I call missional-ecumenism, which follows closely the legacy of John R. Stott himself. 

Chris and his wife, Liz, belong to All Souls Church, Langham Place, where Chris enjoys preaching from time to time as a member of the ministry team. This is also the church where LPI’s founder, John Stott, was rector emeritus.

My good friend Jeff Gokee, the executive director of Phoenix One, is the young man that you will see with me in the video interviews on the ACT 3 site where I talk about the Missional-Ecumenical Cohort Groups. Jeff recently called me and told me that he had been invited to share in an evening group that would meet with Chris Wright in Phoenix. He asked me some questions about Chris and wanted to know what to ask him if he had the opportunity. I listened with real interest and prayed for Jeff to have a wonderful life-changing evening. I wrote him the next day and asked, "How did your time with Chris Wright go?" He answered:

It was wonderful. :-)  

There were only 15 people invited to a private home and I was clearly the least educated of all of them.  God keeps putting me in rooms with really smart people. I LOVE it.  

I prefaced my question by saying that I read John 17 with new lenses this year and it's ruined me in the best kind of way.  So, with that being said, I asked: "How important is the unification of the church?"

He said it is THE issue in the church today and went on to unpack his answer. Basically he validated all that you and I are sacrificing our lives and dreams for in our respective missions.  He said he can't understand why Western church leaders feel the need to publicly criticize each other… asking, "How does that profit the kingdom?" He then told a story about when he was in India and a local pastor came and told him that the Hindu priests can spiritually replicate all the miracles that the Christians can do, but they can't replicate our LOVE.  

I had some time to chat with him about our mutual friendship and then I told him that you and I were praying for him and deeply appreciate his work.  I'm going to send him a copy of Your Church Is Too Small to touch base with him again. Who knows what God will do.  

Cheers,

Jeff 

 

 

Civil Religion, Prayer & Our Future Mission

America has had more than its share of court cases and challenges regarding prayer in our public schools. I can actually mark stages of my developing memory about growing up in America by these various challenges and debates. I remember, very vividly, when the Supreme Court first ruled on separation challenges regarding opening the day with prayer in our schools. I remember how Christians vehemently protested and spoke against the "evil" Warren Court for years. I also remember the hatred so many had for Madalyn Murray O'Hair, the flamboyant atheist who crusaded against "state-sponsored" prayers for years. I remember how Ronald Reagan made this a big emotional issue in his campaign for the White House in 1980. Many said that the day God turned against America was the same day that "we kicked him out of our public schools." This decision took on apocalyptic overtones. I still meet a few folks who believe this story with deep conviction. I also remember that Reagan was unable to do much about changing the court's decision. The truth is that nothing has happened since to fundamentally alter these movements and court decisions begun in the 1950s. 

Now we have another hotly-debated court case about prayer in our schools in the headlines. Jessica Ahlquist, an atheist high school student in Rhode Island, was recently part of a successful lawsuit to remove a longstanding printed prayer on the wall of her school auditorium. The response to Jessica has been nothing short of amazing. She has been threatened on-line and ostracized at school. She has stood before angry crowds of parents who have attacked her for her public stand. It has gotten so bad that Jessica needs police protection at school. 

What should Christians think and do about this situation?

First, it would help if we had a much better grasp of the legal and Constitutional issues. Jessica is arguing for freedom of religion from the state, but in a way that appears to many to be an attack on religion. In fact I think the decision underscores the protection that our state gives to all religious expression. As we become even more religiously diverse I believe this reality will be more important to serious Christians. Let me explain.

What is being challenged here? A prayer posted on a wall asking for mental and physical growth, for kindness and good sportsmanship and for students to bring credit to their high school. It is, in simple terms, a rather innocuous prayer. It is not, to put this plainly, a deeply Christian, Christ-centered expression of faithful belief and practice. It is an expression of civil religion. It is a relic of our culture, a culture that is rapidly changing. 

Do we believe that it is the role of the state to be the custodian of our faith in some public way? If you want to trace this argument go back to Emperor Constantine, where Christianity was granted official state protection and wedded to the state in a manner that gave it preference over Roman deities. The results of this marriage have been, at best, very mixed. Religious wars and major shifts in cultures have resulted from this arrangement. In America we separated church and state, primarily to protect the church from the state. Over the course of 225-plus years we have been working out what this actually looks like in a society that was predominantly Christian, at least in a cultural sense. When the state sponsors or supports any expression of faith, Christian or otherwise, what we get is civil religion. Why do we fight so hard to protect this form of civil religion when the clear facts are that it is not working as it once did? Further, is civil religion really the friend of vibrant, prophetic, radical discipleship in public? I think not. 

But the more intriguing question in the Jessica Ahlquist story is what Christians are actually doing, or not doing, in regards to this student? Those who are attacking this girl call themselves Christians. (The town is heavily Roman Catholic.) As these citizens embrace their expression of civil religion they show just how meaningless and misguided this approach is by their daily actions. 

Think about this for a minute. If the parents and students at this school want to defend biblical Christianity they should pour out true love for Jessica. They should stand by her in this very difficult time. This girl, who needs police protection at her high school, cannot even receive flowers from well-wishers who have tried to send them through her from local florists. Jessica is a neighbor but she has been turned into an enemy. Nothing could be further from the clear commands of Jesus.

What is being confirmed in the minds of millions who watch this story unfold? I believe many will draw the conclusion that Christianity is about power and getting our way. Rather than being about love for neighbor it is really about meaningless, divisive speech, a form of speech that further reduces the church's power to spread the good news. Through the actions of people in Rhode Island, and far beyond, multitudes show that faith is more about a prayer on a school wall than about a suffering girl who is threatened and vilified.

In microcosm this story reflects what is going on in our culture. Civil religion is still very strong, make no mistake about that. But brick-by-brick this cultural house is coming down. It seems to me that we have several ways we can respond. One is to fight these battles through protest and partisan political struggles. (Christians invest millions of hours and dollars in these efforts!) Another response is to work for a new public square where all religions have their place. In this context Christians can use this public square to openly witness to the love of Christ through words and actions that are consistent with a robust missional faith. We can even share the gospel. This is what my son's mission, Crossroads Kids Club, is doing inside public school buildings every week. (Most Christians protest taking a prayer off the wall of the school yet they care very little about sharing the story of Christ's love with the kids inside the schools when you actually show them that it is both legal and easy for a local church to do!) 

So which will it be? Will we accept what has happened to civil religion and adjust to this new reality of a plurality of faiths in America? Will we go inward and be silent or simply protest these decisions of the courts? Or will we love the Jessica Alhquists of the world and show them how much God actually loves them through our words and actions? Will we actually adopt a missional mindset that is in line with what Jesus taught and use the freedom of religion that we still have in this great country to make disciples of Jesus?