Like many others today, I’m still concerned that the phrase is being co-opted by well-intentioned people to mean both “more” and “less” than it should mean.  Rather than come up with a different term, I think we need understand and use it well.

This article will help.  Happy reading.

“Spiritual formation in Christ is accomplished, and the Great Commission fulfilled, as the regenerate soul makes its highest intent to live in the commandments of Christ and accordingly makes realistic plans to realize this intent by an adequate course of spiritual disciplines.” P. 76

Then comes a great comment that is useful in helping heal so much of the division that exists in the church today.

Christian spiritual formation understood in this way is automatically ecumenical and inclusive in the sense that those thus formed, those who live in obedience to Christ, are thereby united and stand out as the same in their obedience. The substance of obedience is the only thing that can overcome the divisions imposed by encrusted difference in doctrine, ritual, and heritage. The lamp that is aglow in the obedient life will shine. The city set on the hill cannot be hid. Obedience to Christ from the heart and by the Spirit is such a radical reality that can never be achieved by direct efforts at union. It is not achieved by effort, but by who we are: “I am a companion of all who fear you” (Psalm 119:63).

Some years ago, ecumenism attempted to center on the confession (italics mine) of Christ as Lord. Little came of it because, in the manner to which we have been accustomed by history, the attitudes and actions of real life were left untouched by such a profession. But actual obedience (italics mine) to Christ as Lord would transform ordinary life entirely and bring those disciples who are walking with Christ together wherever their lives touch. Christians who are together in the natural contexts of life would immediately identify with one another because of the radically different kind of life, the eternal kind of life, manifestly flowing in them. Their mere non-cooperation with the evil around them would draw them together as magnet and iron. Any other differences would have no significance within the unity of obedience to the Christ who is present in his people.

Two reflections from these thoughts, maybe three. First, merely confessing Christ as Lord is not enough to transform our lives and give us the peace that accompanies the spiritual life that Jesus offers us within his Kingdom rule. We must choose to obey Christ, in all he teaches us. This choice should be reflected in our pursuit of spiritual formation.

Second, within the framework of the centered/bounded set conversation, I’ve seen the importance of developing or finding people who want to gather together because of (1) their love for Jesus, and because (2) they were informed with a Kingdom theology. I would now add a third critical element, Obedience to Christ. Intending to obey Christ will lead to a “radically different kind of life” characterized by “non-cooperation with the evil around them.”

Third, I may be self-deceived, but this is what I see in the lives of those U40-ites who choose to walk and minister together in the city. We have so many different callings and foci of ministry, yet we are not drawn together because of a particular denominational affiliation, a particular ecclesiology, or worldview. We love Jesus. We want to participate in His Kingdom. We want to obey him.

Save the date, Aug 23rd. Our next U40 meeting will explore the centrality of spiritual formation to the reimagined church. In the last year, there have been a good number of conversations in our circles regarding shared shared spiritual practices, a rule, and other elements that have often been captured with the term “neo-monastic.”

I too have been on a bit of this journey, initially reluctantly, but now with conviction that we should try to connect the dots and, like most topics we cover, figure out what the Lord is doing and get on board.

At our next meeting, we will connect, share a bit about what God is doing in our lives and ministry. I was planning on sharing a bit about my learning from journey in recent months. Mostly thoughts from Dallas Willard’s “Renovation of the Heart,” and a current course on Celtic Spirituality.

I also wanted you to hear from my friend Father Gary Crandall. His church has been neo-monastic for 25+ years. Their fellowship emerged from the Catholic charismatic movement. Their journey led them to begin a series of churches in the U.S. that have a charismatic protestant theology, yet the church also has a monastic element in the Franciscan tradition. We’ll have a chance to interview some members of the community as well.

I thought it would be interesting to learn and compare ancient (Celtic), old neo (with Father Gary), and new neo (some of us?).

More info to follow, but essential details are below.

I’ll also mention that we have been graciously invited to stay after for some lunch to fellowship some more, ask questions, etc. If you are interested, bring $5 and RSVP with me so we can get it figured out.

Essential bits:
Date: Aug 23, 2008
Time: 9am - Noon, optional lunch with community following.
Location: Resurrection Community Church
http://www.resurrectioncommunitychurch.org/
12730 Elm Park Lane
Poway, CA 92064

Geoff

My understanding of discipleship was primarily dependent on a set of materials that I needed to learn or that I needed to get people through. Discipleship was largely the conveyance of information, with the belief that that information would change a persons thinking and behavior. Today, thanks to a Monday morning study with a group of men, together working through Dallas Willard’s “Renovation of the Heart,” I think differently about discipleship.

Today, it is about the transformation of the inner self. “Spiritual formation of the Christian basically refers to the Spirit-driven process of forming the inner world of the human self in such a way that it becomes like the inner being of Christ himself.” (P. 22 - Renovation)

Prayer, as a spiritual discipline (or “spiritual practice” as preferred in today’s language) was a central element in Celtic spirituality. Specifically contemplative prayer… often in solitude. I like what Ray Simpson says in his description of contemplative prayer in his book, “Exploring Celtic Spirituality.”

“…contemplative prayer is the opposite of controlling prayer. It is fatally easy to project the unrecognized needs of one’s own ego into prayer requests. Prayer meetings or private prayer times then become dominated by human self-will dressed in religious clothing. Control is the last thing a Christian clings to in her or his journey into obedience. Contemplative prayer is natural, unprogrammed; it is perpetual openness to God, so that in the openness his concerns can flow in and out of our minds as he wills.” (p. 74 - Exploring)

The contrast between “self-will dressed in religious clothing” and “a perpetual openness to God” (and his will) is what struck me about contemplative versus intercessory prayer. I’m more used to intercessory prayer. And what causes me to sit up and think is that my “request for things” might reflect merely my “self-will.” How would that spiritually form me? It seems to me that a diet heavy in intercessory prayer alone will shape how I see God… alas, even use God.

I like the idea Simpson introduces about contemplative prayer being about a perpetual openness to God’s will. This is consistent with Willard on his chapter of transforming the will. He asks, What does a will or heart look like that has been transformed into Christlikeness? How is it to be characterized?

Single-minded and joyous devotion to God and his will, to what God wants for us — and to service to him and to others because of him — is what the will transformed into Christlikeness looks like. (P. 143, Renovation)

Contemplative prayer + joyous devotion to God and his will = transformation of the inner life.

I enjoy Len’s insightful reflections on these streams, and his analysis of how each helps to balance the other. New to me is the connection of chaos theory and the emerging stream. He is absolutely right that all these streams need to inform each other.

In fact, continues Len, “I’m convinced that the convergence zone is where some of the most creative experiments will occur.” If you have a hard time with the notion of the church experimenting, you will be challenged by his reference to Elizabeth O’Connor:

“We would say that the church of Christ is never an experiment, but wherever that church is true to its mission it will be experimenting, pioneering, blazing new paths, seeking how to speak the reconciling Word of God to its own age. It cannot do this if it is held captive by the structures of another day or is slave to its own structures…” (Call to Commitment, 1963)

These words are so helpful for my church as it tries to figure where it needs to go to address the missional challenge before us. We need to hear that if the church is true to its mission, it will be constantly experimenting, and working to communicate the gospel faithfully in each cultural moment.

A side note on the Mosaic stream. I rightly/wrongly associate this stream with my friends that have been burdened for planting multi-ethnic churches. I wonder if it was birthed in reaction to the Homogenous Unit Principle. I think you can also find some crossover with the Kingdom values of reconciliation and social justice issues. Mosaic makes it onto the diagram above… somewhere.

The second half of the book describes some of ancient spiritual practices that can be employed to help one develop an emotionally healthy spirituality. One of these includes the Daily Office. The “office” is a liturgical aid that contains bible readings and prayers that are intended to be used by a community to keep people focused on the Lord together. It provides a rhythm or an order to ones life that centers it on Christ.

I’ve been using “The Missio Dei Breviary” for a bit now, and will be switching to a printed version of the Northumbria Community’s daily office.

The prayer for this morning’s reflection was/is called The Methodist Covenant Prayer. I enjoyed it’s message and included it below for your benefit.

THE METHODIST COVENANT PRAYER
I am no longer my own, but Thine.
Put me to what Thou wilt,
rank me with whom Thou wilt;
put me to doing, put me to suffering;
let me be employed for Thee
or laid aside for Thee;
let me be exalted for Thee,
or brought low for Thee;
let me be full, let me be empty;
let me have all things,
let me have nothing;
I freely and heartily yield all things
to Thy pleasure and disposal.

And now, O glorious and blessed God,
Father, Son and Holy Spirit,
Thou art mine, and I am Thine.
So be it.
And the covenant
which I have made on earth,
let it be ratified in heaven.
Amen.

]]> http://thehsus.com/views/2008/07/05/methodist-covenant-prayer/feed/ http://thehsus.com/views/2008/06/29/mission-or-church-which-comes-first/ http://thehsus.com/views/2008/06/29/mission-or-church-which-comes-first/#comments Sun, 29 Jun 2008 02:05:34 +0000 Geoff http://thehsus.com/views/?p=225

“It is not the church that has a mission of salvation to fulfill in the world; it is the mission of the Son and the Spirit through the Father that includes the church” Moltmann 1977:64

Mission is thereby seen as a movement from God to the world; the church is viewed as an instrument for that mission. (Aagaard 1973:13)

There is a church because there is a mission, not vice versa. (Aagaard 1974:423)

To participate in mission is to participate in the movement of God’s love toward people, since God is a fountain of sending love.

David J. Bosch, Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1991), 390.

He quotes Dallas Willard from “The Divine Conspiracy”:

Intense devotion to God by the individual or group brings substantial outward success. Outward success brings a sense of accomplishment and a sense of responsibility for what has been achieved — and for further achievement. For onlookers the outward success is the whole thing. The sense of accomplishment and responsibility reorients vision away from God to what we are doing and are to do — usually to the applause and support of sympathetic people. The mission increasingly becomes the vision. It becomes what we are focused upon. The mission and ministry is what we spend our thoughts, feelings, and strength upon. Goals occupy the place of the vision of God in the inward life, and we find ourselves caught up in a vision-less pursuit of various goals. Grinding it out.

Success can cause a ministry to lose focus on what God’s calls it to. Next thing you know we are driven by what we have accomplished and that becomes the important thing. Whether you are a large missions agency or a successful mega-church… success can make it difficult to diagnose our myopia.

Dallas Willard, The Great Omission: Reclaiming Jesus’ Essential Teachings on Discipleship (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 2006), 95.

As I read the article, I could identify San Diego locals that might be a good representation of the different streams. The reality is, at least with my friends in town, we can fit in several of these streams at the same time. So, I don’t want to put anyone in a box, but if you want to connect with someone in town that would be knowledgeable in a stream this list might be useful.

• Emergent: Sarah Ferry (I just reconnected with) and Erin Martinson (who I’ve not met yet) lead the SoCal Emergent Village Cohort for San Diego. Perhaps churches like MissionGathering would be a good representative.
• Missional: I think I would put myself in this camp, along with friends over at Harbor Presbyterian Church. Jason Evans with the Ecclesia Collective fits here as does Steve Denney of CityWalk Church.
• Mosaic: Yucan Chiu of Ethnos is doing a great multi-ethnic work. Roberto Shim of Harbor Presbyterian Church is beginning a new church plant. My friend Luke Chen of Lord’s Grace has been burdened for multi-ethnic work for some time.
• Monastic: Rob Yackley with Nieucommunities in Golden Hill has tendencies in this direction. For many in the U40 group, there is interest in this stream because of the streams priority on spiritual formation/development as a community on mission.

As I reflect on the creation of this list, I realize how unsatisfying it is to try an attach a label to someone’s ministry or church. Comments or additions?

I’m most alarmed when “missional” is used as a synonym for “missions” or any outward Christian expression of love, care and concern toward others. These are good things to do, but is very different from what missional means.

Missions can be seen as a “department” of the church that funds various evangelistic or social service activities. It is seen as a subset of what the church as an organization does. Missions is a noun. Missional, in contrast, is an adjective that attaches the idea of “God with a mission”, with “followers on mission.” The shift in thinking is that while missions is something you do… and is often outsourced to professionals or those really committed to God, missional describes the way a disciple lives as one that organizes his life around God’s mission.

I think it is critically important that the church in N. America moves away from the idea that we can fulfill our mission in the world by proxy through missionaries, and personally assume the privilege/responsibility as followers of Jesus.

Alan Hirsch has written a great post about the difference between the “emerging” church people and those who are “missional” church people. Both groups share the desire to find a more relevant way to following Jesus in this new world, Hirsch maintains a distinction between the two. He argues that the “emerging” movement is a renewal movement, whereas the “missional” camp is a missionary movement. In the post, he further elaborates on the distinctions and pleads for restraint on willy-nilly use of the term “missional.” He writes:

And my advice to all you folks on both sides of the debate that mix up the term, be warned! What you are doing is only making it harder for the Church to come to grips with its deepest sense of call and purpose in this time and place–no less! You are therefore mucking around with what could be one of the most significant ideas that the Church has to grapple with if we are going to survive, let alone thrive, in the 21st Century. For God’s sake, be clear in your use of the term or can I suggest that you stop using it.

The post is quite articulate and deserves a good read. Note also his pairing of Missional with Incarnational. The incarnation of Jesus highlights the fact that the best medium for the gospel to be communicated is in the life of a person that dwells among others. Missions might be about going out and doing stuff, but comes back. Missions can also connote an activity or event where the proclamation of the gospel is primarily a bunch of facts one needs to know. In contrast, missional is about going out… and staying out… developing relationships with people and incarnating the gospel message to others.