If I were to have written the book of Colossians Remixed, I would have given the subtitle as “Speaking the Language of Postmodern People.” I initially thought this was going to be a type of commentary on the book of Colossians, but the authors expand the book to be much more. Yes, they cover what the gist of Colossians is about, but more importantly, they use the book as a backdrop to illustrate the tension between the absolute claims that are often made in biblical texts, and postmodern thought that tends to eschew absolutism in any form.

I assumed that his response to a postmodernistic culture would be to undermine the totalistic claims of Colossians and Christianity and present a postmodern version. He instead went in the opposite direction. Instead of lowering and neutralizing the claims as presented in Colossians, he challenges the reader to live out Christian values fully– “compassion, kindness, humility, meekness, patience, forgiveness, and peace” (180) and challenges the reader to imagine what it might look like in different settings. So he asks the question: what would it look like for a Christian church or group to live out these countercultural values?

The authors say that presenting absolute claims of doctrine doesn’t much interest a postmodern person. What attracts them is living out these counter-cultural values. I was surprised by the all-encompassing nature of the ethic they presented. Such a Christian, they present, will pay attention to issues of ecology, global warming, where our food comes from, fixing injustices in society, and if necessary, getting involved politically to right some of these wrongs. To be honest, I’ve never thought about the relationship between a Christian ecology and where my food comes from. Sure, I’ve thought about global warming and its effects, but I’ve never thought of promoting public transit to protect our environment from pollution as being the responsibility of Christians. The authors simply follow the theological claims of Christianity down to the street level.

They don’t see living like this as a method to attract postmoderns, but as a way to be faithful to the values of Christianity. They do agree that such living is attractive to postmoderns, though.

I think Christians need to think more deeply about some of these issues.

What do you think?

[image by Valerie Everett]

Related posts:

1. Who’s Afraid Of Postmodernism: Book Review
2. Zero To Sixty: Book Review
3. Leadership On the Line: Book Review

Screenshot from the cover

To Know As We Are Known is written by Parker J. Palmer, who won the 1993 award for “Outstanding Service to Higher Education,” and is a sought after speaker in secular and religious communities. Now that I’ve set some pretty high expectations for you, let me address why this book, and his teaching method, is quite revolutionary.

He essentially uses the discipleship model of Jesus and later apostles as a framework for how to engage your students and teach. The three metaphors, he says, are “the study of sacred texts, the practice of prayer and contemplation, and the gathered life of the community itself” (p. 17). We’ll come back to what these mean for the classroom in a few moments.

He first begins, though, by deconstructing the theological and sociological implications of how people normally teach. Students sit in rows. The classroom is to be quiet. On occasion a student might ask a question, at which point, the expert teacher will clearly answer the question and move on. The teacher, of course, is at the front by his/her lectern lecturing and explaining profundities that only he can teach.

He says:

“Such an arrangement speaks. It says that in this space there is no room for students to relate to each other and each other’s thoughts; there is no invitation to a community of troth; there is no hospitality” (p. 75).

He goes on to suggest that this kind of setup actually stifles the learning process, because it creates lazy students whose only responsibility is to memorize what the professor said, and be able to regurgitate it on later exams. I’ve noticed in my own life how completely true this is. In most of my seminary classes, the student was a setup to be a passive partner in the learning process. You sit…you take notes….it’s rather relaxing. In most of my classes I recall sitting there rather dumbly as information is coming to me. I just knew that I had to write or type fast enough and I would be ok. I think that anyone that has encountered any typical classroom can attest to such an effect on the student.

So how does the study of prayer, sacred texts and community affect a teaching environment?

Community

He says that a classroom should be such where community between the students themselves and the teacher is built. To encourage this everyone sits in a circle. There are no rows. The teacher is one of the people in the circle. He says:

“But when the chairs are placed in a circle, creating an open space between us, within which we can connect, something else is said. The teacher may sit in the circle and talk, but we are all being invited to create a community of learning by engaging the ideas  and one another in the open space between” (p. 75).

In a setup like this, there is no “hiding” as a student. You are forced to actively engage. Everyone can see everyone.

Prayer

Palmer begins each class with a moment of silence. It’s not necessarily prayer, though he says many often do pray during this time. But it’s a time in which everyone can settle in and become centered. He also will also occasionally have moments of silence during discussion if the ideas seem to be getting tangled up. He says:

“In most place where people meet, silence is a threatening experience. It makes us self-conscious and awkward; it feels like some kind of failure. So the teacher who uses silence must understand that a silent space seems inhospitable at first to people who measure progress by noise. Silence must be introduced cautiously; we must allow ourselves to be slowly re-formed in its discipline before it can become an effective teaching tool. But once the use of silence is established within a group, once we learn that we make progress in being quiet…then silence becomes a potent space for learning…eventually my students feel a sense of community in the silence that is deeper than what they feel when the words are flowing fast and hard” (p. 81).

As an extension of the silence, he also recommends asking a lot of questions in the style of Socrates, Jesus, and many other great teachers of the past. This is often referred to as the “socratic method.” So instead of simply lecturing the whole time, he’ll spend much of the time asking questions of the students and pushing them to become active learners.

When I went to my first D.Min intensive, I experienced this under the teaching of Alan Roxburgh and Mark Branson. I’ll be honest that I never had much context for this kind of teaching before. I had never experienced it in the past, and yet it was amazing. If a student asked a question, for example, the teacher would often respond with a question. This would challenge the student and other students to think through the issue at hand more deeply. And so a minute or two (or more) might be taken up where the teacher is causing the students to think through their bias’ or  suppositions in order to understand the subject more. The teacher is then transformed from being a robot-like expert who spits out answers, to a guide, and an encourager in the learning process. Other students, instead of being in a competitive relationship, then, challenge each other and help each other to learn more.

Sacred Texts

Most educational systems assign large amounts of reading that urge students to become speed readers. With this process, you can only engage with the materials on a superficial level. But using the model of Christian discipleship, Palmer encourages teachers to give less reading for the purpose of being able to process more deeply. He says:

“When all the students have read  the same brief piece in a way that allows them to enter and occupy the text, a common space is created in which students, teacher, and subject can meet…there is often need for longer reading assignments to gather information and perspectives, but a shorter text can become the arena of focused exploration ” (p. 76).

This all isn’t to say that there are no lectures in this teaching style, but that the lectures might be shorter, and greater responsibility is given to the student to process and learn together. Palmer referenced a history teacher that used this method and helped to create a “space in which students became dependent on each other to spot the fallacies, a space that not only invited but compelled students to participate in their own and each other’s education” (p. 78).

In short, this is a process that respects students and comes alongside them for the purpose  of encouraging their learning.

Like I said before, being involved in this style, I know that it works. I think that it helps to create a more independent learning style where students take greater responsibility for their learning, because they know the’ll be held accountable during discussion and interaction times.

There’s a lot more that can be said concerning the book and the style that’s being put forward, but I think you get the gist.

I highly recommend the book.

So what do you think of this style? Have you ever experienced a “socratic” teaching style? How have you received it?

Related posts:

1. Winning on Purpose: Book Review
2. Who’s Afraid Of Postmodernism: Book Review
3. Leadership On the Line: Book Review

Here they are:

10. You Were Born For This by Bruce Wilkinson

9. How To Become A Fierce Competitor by Jeffrey J. Fox

8. Rework by Jason Fried

7. The Confession by John Grisham

6. Outrageous Advertising by Bill Glazer

5. The Little Big Things by Thomas J. Peters

4. Everyone Communicates, Few Connect by John Maxwell

3. Bod 4 God by Steve Reynolds

2. Wrestling With Alligators, Prophets, And Theologians by C. Peter Wagner

1. The Truth About Leadership by Jim Kouzes and Barry Posner

Some of these books have become quite well known already. Rework has gotten a lot of press. Maxwell is always writing. Bod 4 God is a book that Nelson Searcy himself used to looks some weight. Kouzes and Posner are great leadership experts.

In a few years many of these will become much more mainstream. But if you want to get ahead of the curve, you can start reading now.

So have you read any of these yet? What are the top books you’ve read in 2010?

[image by B_Zedan]

Related posts:

1. Top Books of the Year!
2. Top 9 Books of 2009
3. Overcoming a Personal Reading Plateau

What The Book Is About

It’s within this context that Alan Kreider, in his book “The Change Of Conversion and the Origin of Christendom” seeks to go back in history to examine how exactly people were converted, initiated, and baptized. He does this by examining the writings of many of those that were converted and baptized.

Kreider found that the first few centuries evidenced a certain process at work: there was a change of belief, behavior, and belonging, followed by baptism. Examining the story of Justin, in the 2nd century, he says:

“For Justin, Christian belief led to a discerning of areas of demonic power in society that enslaved people; but the freedom that Christ brought liberated people from addiction and compulsion, and led to distinctive forms of behavior. It also led to a unique sense of belonging. The Christian community was knit together by its search for ways of dealing with sex, the occult, wealth, and violence that would be in keeping with the teachings of Jesus” (p. 6).

What’s interesting is that the early church expected to see a change in the believers before they were baptized. So after someone came to belief and conversion, there had to be a change in behavior. It wasn’t only an intellectual change.

Of Cyprian, in the 3rd century, he notes that “His struggle was not to believe what the Christians believed; rather, it was to live as they taught–and as many of them seemed to have lived” (p. 8). It was a struggle because, in those days, Christianity really was a counter-cultural movement. In other words, Christians lived very differently from the rest of society, often in ways that made them stand out.

How were they different? People took care of the needs of society: they learned to feed the poor, care for those in jail, and much else. This all dealt with the 2nd stage in their discipleship process of changing behavior. People were also given “sponsors” and submitted themselves to personal mentorship and spiritual care in order to overcome addictions and gain victory over sin.

He notes the suspicion of Tertullian  towards this counter-cultural movement:

“Why should a well-off pagan woman join a voluntary community about whose members’ welfare she is passionately interested? Why should she go into the hovels of the poor? Why should she enter prison to visit the martyrs or kiss their chains–or worse kiss one of the brethren? Why should she invite a visiting “brother” to stay in their home? Or share her food and drink with other church members? All these things were disturbing for the non-Christian husband…” (p. 13).

No where during this process were people ever taught how to “share the gospel” or to “share their faith.” So how did people ever become Christians? “Men, like women, according to Tertullian, became Christians because the Christians, marginal though they were, were intriguingly attractive” (p. 13). This counter-cultural attractiveness was the key to their growth.

Kreider also counters that churches did not grow because their worship services were attractive. In fact, non-believers weren’t actually allowed to enter the services. He says, “Christian worship was designed to enable Christians to worship God. It was not ‘seeker sensitive,’ for seekers were not allowed in” (p. 14).

There also seemed to be a deep sense that God’s power was at work in the early church. The laying on of hands was common and people would get healed of diseases and freed from spiritual strongholds. Kreider says that this “liberation from demonic power was one of the chief benefits that the church could offer to potential converts” (p. 17). Imagine that?

For many, this discipleship process lasted about three years. The process could have been shorter if someone was particularly motivated.

Beginning in the 3rd and 4th centuries, people began join the church by inducement and compulsion. Since Christianity was becoming such an accepted fabric of society, there were many circles in which you could not get a job unless you were Christian. So people now had quite a bit of motivation to join the church. Beginning in 529 AD, though, conversion to Christianity became compulsory under the edict of Justinian that made infant baptism the law of the land.

And beginning in the 5th century, the standards of change that were previously required were noticeably lowered–”…there is no hint that conversion required a respectable aristocrat to change…In order to encourage the conversion of the wealthier citizens, the bishops modulated their preaching” (p. 69). In other words, they began to accommodate their preaching so as to not offend the wealthier among them.

It was also beginning around this time that more religious syncretism began to take place between Christianity and paganism. Kreider says, “The people’s choice was not whether they would be Christians or pagans; in a milieu of compulsion, that choice was not given to them. Rather, it was what sort of Christians they would be” (p. 84).

Final Thoughts:

I thought it was quite a fascinating read. A few things really stood out to me concerning their baptismal/discipleship process:

1. The time. The early church had a rigorous process that someone interested in being baptized would go through. I’m not advocating that someone should have to wait three years before being baptized, but I do see that many churches and denominations are practicing baptism without any instruction at all. That’s because they’re equating baptism with conversion. Pointing to the historical record, anyway, the idea of baptizing at the point of conversion seems to be inconsistent.

2. The topics. I thought the early church’s emphasis on behavior and good works was interesting. Christians were those that feed the poor, and healed the sick, and cared for the prisoners. For many churches these days, these kinds of activities are tied  to missionary and evangelistic strategy. Let’s “do this” so people will come to our church. In the early church, this was a core component of what it meant to be a Christian, and someone couldn’t be baptized until that had become immersed into their lifestyle and Christian experience.

Imagine a discipleship process, then, where learning to serve the poor is a central component? Wow.

Related to this, it was surprising to read about their lack of evangelistic instruction. They didn’t teach people how to convert others. Instead, it was by living out who they were as Christians, that the pagans were convinced and converted.

So I think a modified discipleship process will be in the works. Stay tuned.

Thoughts? What stood out to you?

[image by neilsingapore]

Related posts:

1. Communicating For a Change: Book Review
2. Missional Map-Making: Book Review
3. Winning on Purpose: Book Review

What The Book Is About:

The central premise of this book is that you can’t lead in the same way as before, because we’re living in drastically different times. In the past, and mostly still today, pastors lead based upon a very modernistic framework. It’s an understanding that, if we just know what the problem is, we can figure out the solution. He says, “This longing for absolute clarity reveals just how much the church has been shaped by modernity. Modernity is all about control, clarity, and certainty” (p. 24).

And so, as a result, churches have taken from the business world concepts of “strategic planning” to begin a process; let’s come up with a purpose (what problem are we trying to solve) and then let’s come up with the needed steps to solve it through planning (how are we going to solve it). In fact, I just read an article this morning from Fast Company titled “How Willow Creek Is Leading Evangelicals By Learning From the Business World.” This is a pretty good example of the anti-thesis of Roxburgh’s book. Roxburgh says that too many churches operate from a business-world mentality, instead of attempting to be truly biblical.

He says:

“Leaders tend to believe that their maps of church and leadership are based primarily on theological convictions based in Scripture. Look, for example, at all the books on church structure and leadership that begin with the claim that the author’s perspective is the one that is biblical. At a basic level, this is how different denominations justify their organizational structures and ecclesiologies; each makes the claim that its type of church form is drawn directly from Scripture. Like fish in water, we often fail to see the extent to which our metaphors, images, and beliefs are determined by the cultural maps of our time rather than some set of pure ideas from the Bible” (p. 56).

The danger with having a modernistic framework for church life is that the church becomes a machine. People become solutions to problems. So I’ll develop a ministry to feed the homeless, and I’ll evaluate the success of that ministry based upon how many homeless end up coming to church and become baptized. If it’s not working, the program is cut because, after all, it’s not accomplishing “the mission” of the church. This mindset forgets the fact that Jesus healed people for the sake of making them whole, not on the condition that they would later follow.

After spending some time deconstructing this modern framework for strategic planning and doing church, and presenting eight challenges that we face, he begins to break down a process for doing missional planning.

Step 1: Assess how the environment has changed in your context

Time must be spent discussing how the context in a local church has changed. How have things changed in the last twenty years in a church? In the community? In the city? How have people changed?

Step 2: Focus on redeveloping a core identity

He says, “one of the most critical leadership skills is the capacity to cultivate an environment that enables the re-forming of Christian life around the core identity of the Christian narrative” (P. 136).  This involves the people rediscovering practices and habits of Christian formation. Once the people are taught how to listen and hear from God, they are freed to listed to what God wants them to do in a community. “It will be among the ordinary people of God that the ability to discern what needs to take place in their neighborhoods and communities must emerge. The new maps come from among the people” (p. 137).

So the gist of this point is that we have to find ways to lead people to spiritual practices so they can listen to God and discern where God wants to lead them. Before this step is begun, though, he mentions that a leader first has to develop trust amongst the people. Key to building this trust is a pastor, not doing anything revolutionary, but seemingly doing what is expected–preaching well, visiting, and attending to the needs of the people. In the meantime, the pastor is trying to cultivate the soil and actively lead the people in practicing spiritual disciplines.

Step 3: Create a Parallel Culture

Key to this next step is the developing of a counter culture. He uses the metaphor of developing a monastic community to help us understand this.

He says, “Life among the early Chrsitians involved such practices of formation as giving hospitality to others, pledging to keep the marriage covenant, caring for widows or the dying, and sharing with people in need” (p. 145). The common question would be, “how do we make this happen?” He suggests having systems of accountability so that these habits can take hold deeply.

Step 4: Form partnerships with the surrounding neighborhoods and communities

The first steps involve developing the people in spiritual habits and practices so they can learn to discern God’s voice. This step involves being more intentional about being in the community. There is no strategy yet. There is no specific plan. Just practicing presence in the community. He gives the example of a pastor that began to set aside time each week to connect with people in a coffee shop. By doing this he began to learn some of the stories and narratives that shaped that particular community. Once a group is learning about the needs of the community in such a way, and are influenced by the Spirit of God, social experimentations can be made. As major needs are discovered in the community, forms of strategic planning can be used to guide the experimentations.

He gives the example of a church that, after going through such a process, became convinced that God wanted them to start a day care for the poor. Another church “it wanted to create an experiment in developing transitional housing for women in the neighborhood” (p. 181).

Bottom Line Of the Book:

Overall, I enjoyed the book. It was a ‘tad wordy, though. I’m the kind that wants to get to the nuts and bolts quickly. I figure he could have said all he wanted in about 100 less pages, but he does present a good outline for learning to lead missionaly. So if you want to be a missionary in your local context, these are some solid and biblical principles to follow.

So what about you? What stood out to you from the synopsis?

[image by Chuck Coker]

Related posts:

1. Introducing the Missional Church: Video Book Review
2. Leadership On the Line: Book Review
3. Go Big: Lead Your Church to Explosive Growth- Book Review

1. Emerging Evangelicals. Those in this lane will tweak things like worship style or preaching in order to seem more relevant. They won’t be very invested in “social justice” type issues.

2. House Church Evangelicals. In this lane are Christians who believe that the house church is the best way to reach people. In this lane are those such as George Barna, Neil Cole, and Shane Clairborne. He mentions that a common critique of this movement is that they’re filled with disgruntled Christians.

3. Emerging Reformers.

He says:

In addition to evangelical beliefs, Emerging Reformers have a commitment to the Reformed theological tradition as shaped by such historical figures as Augustine, Martin Luther, John Calvin, the Puritans, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon, along with such broadly recognized evangelical leaders as Billy Graham, J. I. Packer, Francis Schaeffer, and John Stott. Emerging Reformers look to contemporary men such as John Piper, D. A. Carson, and Wayne Grudem for theology, along with Tim Keller and Ed Stetzer for missiology. They also look to church planting pastors such as Matt Chandler, Darrin Patrick, and me.

4. Emergent Liberals. This lane is characterized by the writings of Rob Bell, Brian McLaren, and others.

He says:

Emergent Liberals range from the theological fringe of orthodoxy to heresy that crosses the line by critiquing key evangelical doctrines, such as the Bible as authoritative divine revelation, God as Trinity, the sinfulness of human nature, the deity of Jesus Christ, Jesus’ death in our place to pay the penalty for our sins on the cross, the exclusivity of Jesus for salvation, the sinfulness of homosexuality and other sex outside of heterosexual marriage, and the conscious, eternal torments of hell. Some emerging house churches are also Emergent Liberal in their doctrine.

So why is all of this noteworthy or significant?

I think what’s really important is that it shows the great diversity of ideas and theologies within this “emergent” church movement. There is a tendency to paint broad strokes when referring to these theologies. So I think it’s important to understand that this is a still developing and complex system of ideas.

I know I, for one, wasn’t aware of some of the things he mentions concerning Rob Bell’s doctrinal ambiguity. I knew that he was more reformed leaning, but wasn’t quite sure how far.

Anything else stand out to you?

[image by dotsi]

Related posts:

1. Mark Driscoll and Team Take on Pagan Christianity
2. Who’s Afraid Of Postmodernism: Book Review

In this video I take 5 minutes to give a book review on “Introducing the Missional Church” (affiliate link) by Alan Roxburgh and M. Scott Boren.

Thoughts? What do you think of the concept of the western world becoming the mission field? Accurate?

Related posts:

1. What Is Missional Church?
2. Simple Video That Explains What A Missional Church is About
3. Winning on Purpose: Book Review