Discipleship – Intro: Discipleship and the Need for a Spiritual Revolution

SPIRITUAL REVOLUTION
When I first started writing publically about the church, I started this blog, “21^st Century Reformation”. That was 2003 or about 10 years ago. In those years, the emphasis was simply to take seriously the teachings of Jesus and to apply them in a practical way. I was pastoring a church and later participated in a church plant. Both communities evolved into something that, in light of my reading of the scripture, did not look like the early church. Many of my friends encouraged me to meet people half way and to be more “realistic”. The last few years I have tried that half-measured approach for myself, and I have found this road does not make me happy. Therefore, today I return to my first love and am beginning a new quest to walk a road of continual spiritual revolution. Personally, my heart will only find its home in the midst of a community committed to this spiritual revolution.  Let the journey and the struggle begin anew.

God Plan for Human Community Remains the Same

⁴² They were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer⁴³ Everyone kept feeling a sense of awe; and many wonders and signs were taking place through the apostles. ⁴⁴ And all those who had believed^]were together and had all things in common; ⁴⁵ and they began selling their property and possessions and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need. ⁴⁶ Day by day continuing with one mind in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, they were taking their meals together with gladness and sincerity of heart, ⁴⁷ praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord was adding to their number day by day those who were being saved.

And again in Acts chapter 4, the church is described as “³² And the congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul; and not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own, but all things were common property to them. ³³ And with great power the apostles were giving testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and abundant grace was upon them all. ³⁴ For there was not a needy person among them, for all who were owners of land or houses would sell them and bring the proceeds of the sales ³⁵ and lay them at the apostles’ feet, and they would be distributed to each as any had need.

The biblical description of the early church depicts a community that is both spiritual and revolutionary. Can this be said of the church today? Is the church spiritual? Martin Lloyd-Jones, one of the greatest preachers of the 20^th Century, described the church’s greatest problem as “superficiality”. Is not superficiality in opposition to spirituality? Spirituality seeks to heal what really ails us. A healthy spiritual community develops a spiritual program that helps others find this healing, this freedom, this truly happy and heavenly quality of life. Are today’s Christians distinctly more spiritually healthy and beautiful than the non-Christian? Are our behaviors and attitudes distinct?  Would the on-looker describe the peace and endurance of the modern Christian as stunning and awesome? If not, then, we are not yet spiritual.

Likewise, would anyone describe the church of today as revolutionary? The early church lived communally, “had all things in common”. “There was not a needy person among them, for all who had lands or houses would sell them…and they would distribute to each as any had need”. Does this describe the church today? Is not the church a staunch defender of the status quo? Is the church meeting the material needs of the world in a revolutionary way? Is materialism a problem in the church as it is in the world? Is simplicity the norm? Is our generosity extravagant? Is the church revolutionary like the early church was?

By revolutionary, I mean a community that is living by an entirely different set of ethical rules than the world around us. To be revolutionary always requires a revolutionary relationships with material goods and a revolutionary concern for others. This is exactly what is described in the early church. Plainly, poverty and inequality is a problem in the world and always has been. This problem of inequality was solved in the revolutionary lifestyle of the early church. We cannot call ourselves a biblical community unless we are similarly living a revolutionary lifestyle.

The church is neither radically spiritual nor radically revolutionary, and, unless we become both spiritual and revolutionary, we cannot be the solution to the human problem. Yet, this is exactly what it means that Jesus is the Christ and that we are His disciples. Jesus came to solve the human problem of injustice and man’s inhumanity to man, and this solution is to be shining forth in the church.

What the world needs is a spiritual revolution. Our spirituality must set us truly free, and this freedom must express itself in a distinctly Christlike ethical response to the world we encounter. Our world is drowning in injustice and in need of a people free enough to make personal material sacrifices which meet this injustice with compassion and empathy.

The early church is a description of the prototype of the church as fashioned by the disciples of Jesus. These men and women, discipled in the footsteps of Jesus, lived radically distinct lives filled with spiritual power and material generosity. The early church lived in a state of spiritual revolution bringing a revolutionary lifestyle of worship, prayer and simplicity to a world filled with violence and poverty. Until the church looks like the early church, we will not change the world like the early church changed the world. Until the church makes disciples like Jesus made disciples, the church will not look like the community of the disciples of Jesus.

It is not time to move the deck chairs on the Titanic. It is time for a spiritual revolution.

My Christian Friend - A Positive Testimony

originally posted here: Deep Thoughts

Let me begin by saying that Joe is a good friend of mine. I admire his capacity to have a  solidly evangelical friend like myself. He is truly a great friend, but this post is about another friend of mine, Dan. I was going to write a post that covered three of my best friends but I realize that in the world of blogging most folk do not have the time to read a lengthy post, so I decided to limit this to one friend instead of three. 

I met Dan in 1999. He is the pastor of a local church in Bellflower, CA. Nineteen years ago he came to Bellflower from Michigan for a job interview at our church. He said to the council, “if you want someone to cater to the current culture of the church. You are looking at the wrong man. My vision is to build a multi-ethnic church that displays in a tangible way God’s love for all people and be a symbol in this city of community in the midst of diversity.” Nineteen years later, Dan has made good on his promise. 

If you know anything about organizations, resisting the status quo and attempting to implement change on principle without regard to politics is a difficult and courageous act. Men and women who take this path are heroes. These people are those who suffer real loses and endure real hardship and real heartache for the sake of their principles. In light of recent American history, building bridges between cultures and amongst diverse people is the great task of our generation. Men and women like Dan developed vision for this work to build beautiful community in their youth in the 1970’s, and some, like Dan, had the wisdom, patience, and conviction to bring their vision to fruition. 

I would not betray Dan’s friendship, but I know he has shed countless tears as his passions and convictions have been misunderstood through the years. Being an agent of change is lonely work, but it is worth the difficult times in light of the internal witness that you are on the right side of history. Just last year,I remember at an all nations service representatives from over 20 nations from the congregation stood up on stage and spoke a word of blessing over the congregation in their native tongue. 

Personally, my friend Dan has been a source of comfort for me in some of my deepest trials. He has believed in me when it seems like only my wife and my very closest friends stood by me. Even greater, my friend has let me encourage him and stand by him in his times of need. Though in many ways, Dan is my superior, he has humbled himself and been a peer to me and shared the journey, as a friend. 

I am not saying that only Christians can be friends like Dan is to me or that only Christians labor to make the world a better place, but throughout the world many, many Christians labor to build beautiful communities and those of us who participate in these communities find ourselves deeply indebted to the witness to ‘all that is good’ that these communities communicate to ourselves and our families. All of us, likewise, owe a debt of gratitude to the men and women that labor to build the institutional church in order that this witness will abide for future generations. 

peace, brad

Are the Popular Methods of Doing Church Working?

Whether we go to traditional church or not, we all agree that the Gospel is intended to bring life transformation. The question I wish to address in this post is whether the current popular methods of doing church are working. Here is my thesis:

The church growth method of serving up spectacular church services with great professional music and slick lean sermons has only served to produce spectator Christians whose only understanding of mission is to bring people to the spectacle.

Though no one puts it so bluntly, this method of professionalism is what most every church in America is trying to do. We try to draw people to church by having a well crafted church service. It is the craft of the service that is to create an inspirational moment for the observer and bring them back next week. There are endless reasons why this approach to church is just plain wrong. I simply ask pastors to consider, if we are nervous about whether we will preach a good sermon on Sunday morning, then we got it all wrong. If we focus on improving the “flow” of the service, then we are dead wrong. This approach produces all the wrong results no matter how big our churches are. Such practices produce many shallow results. The one fruit I wish to focus on is that this method produces spectator Christian.

Neil Cole, in his book Organic Church, questions whether in our zeal to increase our attendance we have not somehow lost the plot of the Kingdom of God.

To illustrate the need for drastic change and the ineffective results of doing church in the ways that are popular today, Cole tells a story about a missionary family that comes home to the US on furlough. They have been doing church in a more simple way and their younger children have only seen simple church. One child as he sits in the US church and observes the lights and the sound check and the rehearsals turns to his mothers and says, “Mom, are we going to see a show?”. Cole ends the story by saying, “we are often unable to see how strange our customs really are”. This current method of putting on a show for the congregation is a new and I contend ineffective, counter-productive method. Think what would happen if a pastor just kinda let the whole show stink one week and went over his allotted hour and ten minutes? Oh…God forbid!!! May it never be…What a ghastly thought!!!

My Recent Experience
I went to a Sunday AM church this last Sunday and I was left with some pressing questions. The pastor preached an absolutely wonderful and insightful message on taking risks for the mission of the Kingdom. He preached from the parable of the talents and really nailed the main point. But when he got to application, I couldn’t help but ask myself whether anyone would actually apply the teaching. We hear stories of missionaries, but the stories of lay people building ministries are really quite rare. Is it possible that the traditional church structure isn’t condusive to people having a worldview which includes them initiating and building ministries at the home and street level for evangelism and discipleship.

I am a seminary trained pastor with a strong history of evangelistic successes and teaching gifts and yet there is really nothing for me to do in the traditional church as a member other than to pray and tithe. Is it possible to mobilize the church using the “listen to the teacher” method of doing church? Is the essence of ministry bringing people to Sunday services to hear pulpit teaching and yet this is the majority of church attendees understanding of how evangelism and discipleship works. But does it work? Is it working?

I looked in the bulletin and could not find any meaningful way for me to expand the kingdom through the power of the Holy Spirit. I could become a security guard at an event. I could join a small group to learn more about the bible. I could go to prayer meetings to pray that people would come to the church to hear the gospel. But what could I do to be actually be mobilized for mission. Nothing. This is a real problem. The story of the church needs to teach us differently. The home needs to be seen as the church and what we now thing of as church should really be used as the training center for disciple-makers. To do actually mobilize the masses of Christians, we have to change the story of what it means to do church. The home must become the church.

I am in favor of pulpit preaching and I am all for the sermon. I am a pulpit preacher. Pulpit preaching is my gift. But I have a problem with the church structure as it is lived out today. As leaders, we need to consider that it is possible that because of the current spectator spiritainment paradigm that the church is caught in something needs to change. I contend that the current method cannot work to actually extend the kingdom. All around the country pastors are preaching wonderful sermons but people are not finding discipleship and they are not being mobilized for mission. Overall, we are losing the discipleship of our nation and all I can say is not on my watch. If the current methods aren’t working and if the current methods of spectacular services are only serving to produce spectator Christians, then some changes need to be made. .

1. We must help every one know and every family understand that we are all missionaries!!!

a. As a family, we constantly remind our children that we are a missionary family. We as a family ask ourselves, “What would a missionary family do?”. One family in our small group asked that question and realized they needed to take their kids out of the Christian private school and enroll them in the public school. They need to meet the neighbors and the best way to accomplish this is through the public school. This is risk taking and this is change. If we are all to be mobilized the home must be the place where the mission takes place. To take risks and mobilize the masses of church, every one must see their family as a missionary family and every home as the place where evangelism and discipleship takes place. The centralized church building is where we share stories to encourage one another about the kingdom advancing in our neighbor hoods.

2. The small group in the home must become the primary definition of doing church, and the weekly celebration needs to become a support of the small church, home based discipleship and evangelism ministries. .

a. How many people in your church attend small groups every week. This is the actual size of the congregation. People who attend only on Sunday are not doing church. When we are baptized and enter a new family in Christ, this new socialization process will happen from house to house. It cannot and does not happen through one hour on Sunday. If the Southern Baptists defined church membership as the number of people in weekly small groups, what percentage of the church roles would be actual members. This turns the whole paradigm on its head. Is it possible that the actual size of the church is maybe 5% of the figures that we hear from the denominations?

b. If we seek to make discipleship relationships, we must make these relationships in the home. The home is where we spend time with our close friends. Any thing short of this level of relationship is not going to expand the kingdom.

c. Relationship with disciples in their homes will result in a high percentage of conversions to Christ. They may never step foot in the Sunday celebration but I would contend that these relationships are more likely to produce conversion and kingdom discipleship than trying to invite people to the Sunday Morning Show.

If the definition of how we do church changes to say we are all missionaries and we are doing mission in the home, I would bet that the actual mobilization of the congregation to apply the teachings of Jesus would follow much more “organically”.

God Bless,
brad

Revolution in Ecclesiology - A "Both/And" Solution

Both John at Blogotional and David at Jollyblogger are talking "church".

David is resonding to Barna's new book "Revolution". I myself consider myself a revolutionary but also not. i am a both/and guy. The revolutionary idea is that the institutional church isn't "doing church" and isn;t being the church. So we (emergent folk) are going to leave the church and start a new community where we can set our own sprirutal DNA. For the record, I am against this path. First and foremost such a path is divisive. We do not need another sect of Christianity. Instead, we need to be mature and find solutions to our family problems. This leaving and finding another community is no better than divorcing our wives and finding a new "model".

The Church and "Doing Church"
There is a difference between "the church" (ekklesia) and "doing church". Here is the way I think it works. The church is the institution. Such an institution has elders and government and authority and oversight. We are required to be in the church just like David Wayne is saying (see this post). "Doing church" is the charismatic experience of all coming with gifts and bringing them to the assembly.

The word "ekklesia", to be called out, is actually never used in the verb form in the bible. Instead, for "doing church" the biblical writers use the term assembly. Here is the problem "doing church" (i.e. assembly) is only one function of the church. We can "do church" (assembly in small groups and as a family etc.), but that is not the church. The answer then is to be part of the church with its authority and covenant and also personally "do church" daily or regularly. This is a both/and answer to the problem. I am a revolutionary (I like to do church daily etc) but I am also under the authority of a council and am accountable to the church.

Being the Church
"Being the church" is being the new society. The institutions of church (the sunday meeting/larger congregational meeting) is not stopping anyone from "being the church" in the regular settings of life like small groups and family. Nonetheless, us radicals need to remain faithful to the institution and remain accountable to the larger body both with respect to doctrine and righteousness.

God Bless,
brad

technorati tags: church ; ecclesiology;emergent ; Emerging Church; Religion; emergent church

Family as Church – Ecclesiology in Crisis – Part 3

In this blog, we have discussed a million and one ways to maintain the presence of God. How do we keep the line open so we can maintain our conscious contact with God throughout the day? We are people who as individuals carry the presence of God. This daily reality is life. As Jesus said, this is life – to know God. This is our story.

This story of being the people of God’s presence, the people who walk through the desert with a pillar of fire by night and a cloud by day, is to be our story as a family and our story as the church.

In this series, I am attempting to give illustrations and stories that help us all form a new definition of what is church. In the first post, I attempted to simply show that if we expand our definition of church to something other than the institutional “church”, we can learn to do church wherever we are. Doing church is the responsibility of each of us. We can do church in the home; We can do church in small gatherings of 2 or 3. We can do church and fulfill our mission with a few like-minded friends. This approach gets us out of the “least common denominator” syndrome of the larger congregation setting. For example, I love serving the poor. So be the church and serve the poor with a few friends. No excuses.

In our second post, I discussed that the real mission of the church is socialization. We are to be a new society that socializes people into a kingdom lifestyle based on kingdom principles, the greatest of these being love. We are the church in our homes, in our small groups, in our ministry outings, in our ministries. In all this we are teaching people how to be the people of the presence of God and how to love.

Today, I want to give a simple example of “How to Church?”

How to Church – 2x a day
Do you have a family? If not, you need to find a likeminded Christian roommate. Do you as a family have sit down meals?

When I first became a member of the CRC, I was having a meal with my mentor and we were talking about family meals. He said in his family of origin, they had three meals together as a family. He went to school near his home and he would come home for lunch. At breakfast, lunch and dinner, his father would lead the family in singing and bible study and discussion.

Another pastor friend of mine, who was actually my mentor before the man above who walked home for lunch, he spoke of his children actually bringing their violins to dinner and leading the family in hymn singing. WOW..That is taking the family as church thing seriously.

In both of these families, prayer is both before and after meals to create structure to the meal time.

Well, I have six kids ranging from 2 to 11 and we do family as church whenever I am home for a meal. So usually, at least this week, we have done breakfast together and I think one or two dinners. So here is the vital question:

How do you do meals together as a family?

Again, it is vital to have a method or in this case a liturgy of sorts for how you do church. For us we take about 15 minutes for the whole affair. We
1. Pray
2. Ask “who did a loving thing today?” (during dinner time)
3. Read the bible
4. Discuss the passages meaning.
5. Sing a song
6. Close in prayer
7. Help mom with the dishes.

Our family vision is that there is a “pillar of fire” at the table. We also teach the kids that they need to “bring something to the table”. Everyone comes with a word or a spiritual song or some spiritual gift for our little church. All of this is our little way to live the life.

Lord, let Your glory fall in this room, let it go forth from here to the nations…
God Bless,
brad

technorati tags: church ; ecclesiology;emergent ; Emerging Church; Religion; emergent church

Church as New Society – Socialization and the Church

When Bono of U2 sings, “I still haven’t found what I am looking for” he is not talking about his personal devotional life but the corporate community life of the church.

Bono sings,
“I believe in the kingdom come
Then all the colors will bleed into one
Bleed into one
Well, yes, I'm still running

You broke the bonds and you
Loosed the chains
Carried the cross
And my shame
All my shame
You know I believe it

But I still haven't found what I'm looking for…

All I can say is I agree 100%, but I am learning and starting to see it.
The church is called to be the new society that we long to live in. I love the way the writer to the Hebrews says it, “All these died without seeing what they hoped for, BUT WE HAVE BETTER THINGS FOR YOU”.

This is the proper faith filled vision of the church that Christ calls us to long for. Many leaders see the in breaking of this new order of things in our lives and we desire to pursue this life more and more everyday. We know that we will not see it entirely until its fullness comes but we can live and love in such a way that others see the light and give glory to God.

The Expectations of a Child Like Faith
When a new convert pictures the church and the role of the church in his or her mind, what is the new converts world view? Often this initiates view is quite limited – the church is the place we go to here the bible preached on Sunday morning. Other times the initiates view is quite naïve – the church is a community of brothers and sisters that will meet my needs for community and spiritual growth. This being the new converts initial understanding of what church is can have a large range BUT a more pertinent question is what is this persons understanding of the function of church in his or her life after five to ten years of relationship with the church. I contend that after awhile of actual practice on the ground most of the new believer’s excitement has subsided and the more mature believer now experiences the church as “the place I go on Sunday to hear the word preached”. To this we might add that the now mature believer goes to bible study or small group once a week and has some new friends that believe as he does.

What if instead the young idealist’s expectations are far exceeded and the level of community and spiritual support far exceeded all expectation and that to be under whelmed by the church was the exception and not the rule.

So here is the foundation of the answer to a new ecclesiology or understanding of the bible’s vision for the church, the church is to be that new society that meets the essential needs of the human heart for relationship with God, relationship with one another, purpose and mission AND…

Socialization in a New Way of Life based on New Principles
When I use the term “society” or “culture”, I am speaking of the matrices of relationships, behavioral norms, worldview, and symbolic world that combine to socialize the individual. The modern and post-modern world teaches us that people are a product of their tribe. The church is our tribe and in this culture we learn the principles of our tribe: self-sacrificial love, meekness, mercy, purity, faith and so on. This nurture of the individual is the primary function of the church. If we cannot know that our children are going to learn this lifestyle from the life of the church, then we are not functioning as the church. Many at this point may be saying to themselves, “This is idealistic dreaming”. No!!! Such a vision for the church which is the meaning of the church’s message that “This Jesus is both Lord and Christ” requires faith. Faith that is willing to take steps out of the world and into the kingdom for the Glory of God.

Others maybe saying, “But isn’t this socializing function primarily the function of the FAMILY”

Church as Family and Family as Church
Yes, it is accepted that families create the atmosphere where children learn their fundamental identities BUT do not the parents learn their identities and are not parents ultimately socialized by the church. What of the parent who became a Christian in their 20’s or 30’s? Where do these parents learn to create the kingdom in their homes. The answer is unequivocally, “From the church”.

The church has misunderstood the role of the story of the church in socialization of the beleiver. Is not this the message of our baptism? We died and entered the body of Christ. This entering the body of Christ is not some Gnostic ideal but a living reality.

Instead of accepting this function, as modern believers, we have been deceived to think that our identity comes from our individual relationship with Christ, but this is not where this identity is learned. Our true identity is learned from experience in the church and the life of the church.

The Necessary Response to This Perspective of the Primary Function of the Church
If this is our foundational understanding of the function of the church body then immediately we realize that Sunday lecture is not enough. I cannot worship as a church family once or twice a week and expect this bi-weekly routine to define my personhood and my spiritual identity. This being true, I conclude that I need church society every day. I need to come to the table with my brothers and sisters and worship together daily. This is how the church is family…

In the same way the church is called to socialize the believer, so too, this kingdom socialization describes how the family is to be the church. My family story can be this story as well for the sake of my own identity and spiritual life and the life. Every meeting together as a family can be an experience of worship. Prayer and the word and song can begin to permeate our daily life and define how we eat and play and learn and work.

All of us have some realm of relationships with our fellow believers. All these relationships can be defined as an opportunity for church. Where ever two or three are gathered there, right there, we can be the people of God assembled. Do not wait to become the church, you are the church.

The need is for a new definition of church and church life. Our definitions need porous borders. Our homes need porous borders. Our churches need porous borders. Our work needs a porous border. All our spheres need to become modes of church, of assembly.

God Bless,
brad

technorati tags: church ; ecclesiology;emergent ; Emerging Church; Religion; emergent church

A Crisis in Ecclesiology - Part 1 - Taking Action One Day at a Time

Many leaders young and older (Subversive Influence; Jesus Creed and here too) (more links to follow) today see, as I do, a crisis in ecclesiology. As we read the pages of the bible, we see the church functioning in the believers’ life quite differently than the church functions today. The church of the bible is community. The church of the bible is family. The church of the bible is mission and discipleship. The church is the new people living according to a new worldview, with a new ethic, with new economic ties to each other. The church is noticeably distinct in every way from the world around it. Baptism in the early church meant leaving an old way of life and entering a new culture of people living by a completely different set of principles.

Today, I simply want to introduce the fact that the witness of the church is in a crisis because the limited role church plays in the life of the believer in North America.

Here is the simple challenge: Can we live like the new testament church one day at a time with our small company of friends?

What would this look like? How often would you meet? What changes would have to take place in our lives if we sought to totally re-engineer understanding of life in the church? How would we "take our meals"? How would we use our finances? How would we decide where to buy a home?

My challenge is to realize that we are equipped to live this vision today if we are willing to take responsibility for our life daily. We do not need to wait for leaders to lead us. We have but one leader -Christ. Where ever 2-3 are gathered in His name this new community can become a reality. Such an endeavor takes courage and a deep deconstruction of God's plan for our lives under the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

Today, if you hear His voice, do not harden your hearts.

God Bless,
brad

technorati tags: church ; ecclesiology;emergent ; Emerging Church; Religion; emergent church

The Church as Prophetic Witness

Worldview - The Church as a Prophetic Witness and a People of His Presence

Gideon Strauss, in his post for Feb 28, 2005, articulates the relationship between a person's loves and their course of action. This reminds me of Jonathan Edwards' position that religion is primarily an issue of Affections. Edwards' position is that Grace changes the things we love and hate. Over the last month, I have been reviewing my life story and have more than ever come to realize that God has worked a work in my life, by grace, that has given me a profound love for the church. I have in many ways here at 21st Century Reformation argued for an extremely high view of the church and a vision of the church which I call morally beautiful community.

The Influence of Edwards on My Worldview
This term Morally Beautiful Community came to me while reading Edwards' "On Religious Affections" many years ago. Edwards speaks of the Spirit, through the Gospel, revealing to the heart the Moral Excellencies of Christ. To Edwards, the work of Grace produces in the heart of the believer affections for these moral excellencies. Therefore, our chief end in life is to display these moral attributes of God in our life. Edwards represents the height of the pietist and revivalist history in the Reformed tradition. I see the chief end of man not to so much to display the excellencies of God in the world as individuals but as a body. We, as people, by the way we LIVE TOGETHER, are to be this "city on a hill" that displays God's manifold beauty. We are to become the Morally Beautiful Community.

Our Beauty and Evangelism
Edwards, in his life and the life of his congregation, experienced seasons of Grace that transformed the community around them. The fruit of the people, the winsomeness of their worship, and their artistic expressions, all came forth from the community and led to great cultural renewal. Such a view of the role of the church and the potential for the church, I believe, constitutes a distinct worldview. The question is, "why do some Christians have a worldview which maintains this high and prophetic view of the church while others do not?". I for one cannot read the bible without seeing the call to become this radically distinct and morally beautiful people, a corporate vision. I believe that this is the Hebrew worldview. Western individualism has undermined this corporate aspect of the biblical worldview.

Church as Prophetic Witness
I will make just a couple of many possible explanations of why I personally, and I assume others, might maintain such a high view of the church in God's program.

First, our personal experience with church effects our definitions of what is normal church life. First, I was not raised in the church. Secondly, my first Christian experiences were of a fully renewed church body. I was saved out of the American dream into a Morally Beautiful Community. The church I first attended was highly mobilized. All my friends participated in church daily. The church had three lengthy prayer meetings a day. I lived in highly intentional community with 8-12 other single men. We did works of justice every weekend in neighborhoods in Southern California. The church grew by over 1500 people in the first 5 years I attended. Testimonies of significant life change were very regular. Monthly baptisms took most of an afternoon to accomplish. I lived in the same house as my mentor. All these experiences inform my expectation of church.

This church though reformed in doctrine at the highest levels was negatively effected by the anti-intellectualism of American evangelicalism and the most hyper streams of Pentecostalism. Nonetheless, the positive church experiences created in the participants a very high definition of God's intention for the church. I believe that such a view of the church is biblical. The book of Acts stands as a picture of the prototype of the church. The normal mode of the church then is to manifest the moral attributes and the qualities of the church in Acts in our generation. Such a view of the church leads the believer to see the church as a prophetic picture which like the New Testament church produces evidence of the Lordship of Jesus Christ by its distinctive story. Such a view of the church sees the North American church as existing in an abnormal or subnormal condition. Such a worldview is compelled to focus much attention on the urgent need for church renewal. Such thinkers begin to contemplate deeply the problems with the North American church at large and seek to understand the root causes of what ails the church.

Believers who maintain such a high view of the church tend to have an rather low view of the role of politics or the state as a means of cultural renewal. I do not claim that this view of the state and politics is necessarily correct. For example, the church in China is considered to be relatively renewed and is it not possible that this renewed church is playing a significant role in the democratic movements in China. I do not know. But what I do know is that a renewed church is the foundation of such a movement toward the renewal of the state.

So the question would be. How does one's view of the church effect one's view of the path to cultural renewal? How does one's personal experiences effect one's passions toward church renewal? Would you say that you hold a high or low view of the church as Morally beautiful Community? Would you say that the renewal of the church is central to your personal commitment? If so why? If not why not?

God Bless,
brad