I’ve been trying to read a few books recently. Some of them are related to a sermon series I’ve been preaching through on “The Church”. Some of them are books that I’ve been thinking about reading for a while. While I don’t have the time or energy to do full book reviews, I thought I’d offer some reflections on three of these books–Simple Church, Why We’re Not Emergent and The Living Church.If you have other thoughts or further questions about these books, let me know!

Simple Church: returning to God’s process for discipleship (Thom Rainer & Eric Geiger)

The premise for this book is, well, simple. As churches, we tend to over program, over plan and over complicate the process of discipleship. Biblically we aren’t called to do that many things. By allowing good things to fill our schedule and sap our energies we have lost the emphasis on the necessary important things. Rainer and Geiger use scripture, research and anecdotal evidence to defend their thesis that churches should operate simply, emphasizing the essential elements of church to the exclusion of other elements that, although there is good motives behind them, often distract from the things that are biblically commanded.

Overall, I really like what Rainer and Geiger are contending for in this book. They are basically saying that we need to give up the good in order to focus on the best. As a pastor I have lived through great struggles because people have made secondary things sacred. Often church fights are centred around my golden calf vs. your golden calf. By limiting church emphases on the essential elements of Christianity and eliminating all sacred calves this kind of division is avoided. There is no pretense in this book that fighting for what is truly essential in discipleship will not be costly. People don’t like having their pet program eliminated or their sacred cow melted down and refined into something more pure. The contention of Simple Church is that wisely and graciously fighting these battles and helping people focus their time and energy on the right things will be better for the health of the church and of individual believers in the long term.

My only contention with this book is how it is ordered. They start by looking at the world and at the move toward simple in our culture and argue that this same principle will be effective in the church. They then move to research and scripture. I believe that they were driven by scripture, but the order of the book shows the authors being driven by culture and then reading scripture in this light. I really wish they had ordered things in a way that started with scripture, demonstrated how it works itself out in church life through research and then shown how bibilical wisdom is proving to have an impact in other areas of life too. I don’t think their misordering of things is insignificant, however it doesn’t render their thesis is invalid. I hope readers will be able to identify this mistep, but then look past it to what is valuable in this book.

If you are involved in church leadership and are looking for some wise advice on how to do the right things in the right way for maximum kingdom impact this book is a great read.

Why We’re Not Emergent (by two guys who should be) (Kevin deYoung & Ted Cluck)

Full disclosure. At the time of this book’s publication I read several reviews for it. The combination of poor reviews by people who’s opinion I highly value and positive reviews from people whose opinion I have come to question in many areas led me to mentally file this title in the “likely not worth reading” category. Since then I have had a few personal friends recommend this book to me as something that is worth reading. Others I know have church leaders who regularly rant against all things that they consider emergent and have asked me my opinion of this book because some of their church leaders were recommending it. Recently I have tried to expose myself to things I would not normally read. I decided that this book would be a part of that practice and I borrowed it to read.

I knew in the introduction that I was in trouble. In the introduction the writers begin by clarifying that there is no such thing as a single entity called “the emerging church”. They point out that even some of their most vocal “neo-Calvinist” contemporaries are considered by some to be emergent and refuse to make blanket generalizations about what is emergent. They discuss the fact that there are no real “emergent leaders” and that no one ever claims to be a spokesperson for the movement. They even point out that some authors distance themselves from this non entity called “the emerging church”. They point out the fact that trying to define emergent is like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall.

They then set up their own definition of what “the emerging church” is in a manner that fits the purposes of their argument. They move to boldy appoint leaders of the emerging church they have defined. The seek to draw people into the “emergent” discussion who have publically distanced themselves from it. In short…all the stuff they say is really impossible to do with this Jell-O like non entity–they do. My favourite part of the introduction is when they say they’d love to actually hear what the authors they are reponding to have to say on certain issues, but they never even tried to personally talk to any of them. They build their whole case by quoting people, some of whom live very close to them and most of whom make themselves very accessible via web correspondence and they didn’t try to clarify anything with any of them! My best efforts to read this with an open mind were compromised.

A few years ago I gleaned a very valuable piece of wisdom from someone with a lot more experience that myself. They pointed out that, while we all may love to finish reading every book we start, our time is too valuable to keep reading a book that is a chore to read or you discover is not actually valuable reading. I used to feel an obligation to read everything I started because I had spent money on the book or because I would feel guilt if I “gave up” on reading something. Developing the ability to put a partially read book on the bookshelf was a very freeing thing and it has saved me hundreds of hours of frustration. This practice came in very handy in the context of Why We’re Not Emergent.

I tried. I really did. But at the end of chapter three I couldn’t take any more. My struggle is not with the way the book is written. I actually enjoy the way that deYoung and Kluck’s very different styles compement each other. The problem with this book stems from what they largely confessed to in the introduction of the book. They created their own straw man and the rest of the book is spent drawing out quotes from “emergent” authors that support the structure they have created and then beating down their very creation. Their typical approach to criticism occurs in three steps. Step one:  Draw a quote out of context. Step two:  Restate the point of the quote in a way that supports your created strawman. Step three:  Destroy that strawman!

This is typified by this segment in chapter one of the book:

Brian McLaren…argues that in one sense all theologies are heresies because we can’t truly speak of God using our human formulation. What is needed is “not absolute and arrogant certainty about our theologies, but a proper and humble confidence in God.”

Fair enough. Who wants to be arrogantly certain about anything? But McLaren posits a false antithesis, suggesting that we can know God personally, but can’t confidently know things about Him.

deYoung then proceeds to debunk this idea that we can know God without actually knowing things about Him.

Huh? Wait a second. That’s not what McLaren said in that quotation. McLaren was arguing for our confidence coming from God, not in our ability to formulate concrete statements about Him. He doesn’t say that we can’t confidently know things about Him. He says that ultimately our confidence must rest in the person of God, not in formulations of what we know about Him. He doesn’t say we can’t have formulations. He doesn’t even say they aren’t important. He is saying that they shouldn’t be the source of our ultimate confidence. deYoung’s efforts to destroy the message of “emergent” isn’t actually emergent’s message. It is his message about what emergent says.

I can’t say that he always misrepresents the authors he quotes in this book because I haven’t read them all. Based on the quotations I am familiar with, however, it looks as though the exegisis of the writings that deYoung and Kluck draw on to create their strawman is devastatingly poor. I cannot see someone who has given the books in question a fair reading having any real appreciation for Why We Aren’t Emergent’s handling of the texts. If you want to know how poorly I think this book handles the writings they are critiquing, let me put it this way. If deYoung’s handling of scripture in the pulpit is as faithful to the text as his handling of these authors…his congregants are likely exposed to heresy on a weekly basis. Hear me well…I am not saying that deYoung is guilty of heresy. I trust that his handling of scripture is far more careful. I just wish he had used something close to the same level of integrity he would seek to bring to scripture to the texts he quoted in the writing of this book.

I found Kluck’s writing very engaging and I likely could have taked a full book of his writing despite the critiques that I have. The writing of deYoung was much less palatable, however. This is largely because he was more prone to the exigetical errors mentioned above. If these same gentlemen wrote a book defending what they believe the church should be and what they do believe are essential elements in the church I would probably greatly appreciate it. Based on this book, I understand why they aren’t emergent. I just wish their reasons would be rooted in reality and not in their own creation of what emergent is.

The Living Church:  Convictions of a Lifelong Pastor (John Stott)

I ordered this book in a diverse collection of books about the church that I wanted to read in preparation for a recent sermon series. I didn’t have much sense that I would be drawn into this book or that I would really resonate with it. It’s not that I was skeptical of it. I just didn’t know what to expect from an Anglican octogenarian.

This book is one of the best books I’ve read in a very long time. Stott attempts to speak to the essentials of the Christian church and, in so doing, makes a strong statement about what things are not essentials. For what it’s worth I think he’s write on. He speaks to virtually every major aspect Chapters focusing on worship, evangelism, ministry, fellowship, preaching, giving and impact touch on nearly every truly significan aspect of church life. Although he is anglican and writes from this perspective, Stott is clearly familiar with the free church tradition and writes in such a way that it is still very relevant to us.

One of my favourite sections was the appendixes. Why I Am Still A Member of the Church of England is especially interesting in these times when the global Anglican community is on the verge of rupture. I felt that much of what he says from a denominational perspective is still very relevant to those of us who may be considering switching local churches where we have struggles. I Have a Dream of a Living Church is a great summary of much of what he writes about in the book. Reflections of an Octogenarian is a short essay full of great advice for any pastor…especially young pastors.

This book is practical without being formulaic. It is relevant while maintaining depth. It carries with it the clarity and sophistication that can only come with age and experience that a man like John Stott has. Full of challenges and encouragement, I recommend The Living Church to anyone involved in church leadership.

A comic posted by Bill Kinnon got me thinking. I’ve included the comic at the bottom of this post. Enjoy!

In a classic scene from the movie City Slickers Billy Crystal’s character, Mitch, finds out a bit about the secret of life from Curly, the old, leathered cowboy.

Curly: Do you know what the secret of life is?
[holds up one finger]
Curly: This.
Mitch: Your finger?
Curly: One thing. Just one thing. You stick to that and the rest don’t mean [garbage].
Mitch: But, what is the “one thing?”
Curly: [smiles] That’s what *you* have to find out.

So often, in our quest for meaning and purpose we spend our time either looking for that one thing or lamenting the fact that we haven’t found that elusive one thing.

Perhaps that is because meaning isn’t primarily found in “one thing” that we can do, hold onto or have. As Christians we believe that purpose and meaning in life comes is as much tied to where we are looking. If you are searching for significance and purpose in money…you’ll fail whether you have a lot or a little. If you are searching for significance and purpose in fun…you’ll fail no matter how much you have. If you are searching for significance and purpose in family…you’ll fail no matter how close you are.

If, however, you are searching for significance and purpose in the God of the universe…you can be assured that he is there and he loves you. He will always be there. Even when I fail to draw close to him and create distance between him…he is there. My significance and purpose is intact because it is rooted in him not me, my stuff, my human relationships or my influence. Although I may not always feel signficant…I can rest assured that the source of my significance transcends my feelings and never wavers.

I was prompted to consider this by the cartoon below. Enjoy it and think about it.

I’ve come to really enjoy many of the talks on TED. Often they represent a world view that I don’t hold, however much of what is presented reaks of brilliance. I enjoy putting myself in places where I am the dumbest person in the room because it will make me smarter and better. That’s what I’m doing when I watch TED videos.

This morning I came across David Logan (USC faculty member, author and consultant) speaking on tribal leadership. As a tribal leader, there is much here that I see in people and there is much here that I need to work on myself.

A few thoughts strike me as I consider this.

• I can’t help but think about the number of significant leaders I know in church circles (pastors and denominational leaders alike) who’s efforts to extend influence involve them trying to draw people into their circle, rather than making introductions to others beyond themselves. How much are we stunting kingdom growth because of tribe level 3 thinking?
• In my efforts to try to foster levels 4 and 5 how many people at lower stage levels to I miss because I fail to speak in a way that moves them there slowly? Too often, I expect people in level one to get it when I speak about higher level realities. I then blame them when they don’t get it, rather than on my own leadership deficiencies.
• Watching TED videos regularly introduces me to people who long to “change the world”. Why, when we have the only gospel that can really bring the world any hope, do we as Christians fail to live for this dream? Often I fail to live as though the gospel can really change my life, let alone the world. I…we…desperately need to resolve the words that Michael Card sang in the early 1980’s. “I have decided I’m gonna live like a believer, turn my back on the deceiver. I’m gonna live what I believe.” If I really live what I claim to believe, my life will be different and I will act in the world as though the gospel can change it, too.

I’ve been watching a bit of the health care reform debate in the United States. Here we have a country where a significant portion of the poorest of its inhabitants have access to very inadequate or no health care. The care they do get drives them into a poorer and poorer state, thus fueling the rich gets richer system that governs the country. In the meantime the leadership of the country is spending trillions on “defense” (a war entered into with questionable legality).

Now, a nation in massive debt is going to dramatically increase that one problem with the hopes that they can fix another. I totally understand why those who want to see the poor of their nation cared for want healthcare reform. I also totally understand why those who don’t want to see the debt increase question at an even greater rate oppose it.

Being the kind, helpful Canadian I am I thought to myself…is there any way we could assist our neighbours to the south in their time of turmoil.

With some consideration, let me offer this proposal that could aid in overcoming their debt and offer healthcare reform. Yes, United States of America, you can have it all! Here’s the offer.

Most companies that get into massive amounts of debt that they cannot pay back have one option: declare bankruptcy and fold. It makes sense that the United States, the global centre of capitalism and business, should follow the rules of business that it encourages everyone else to follow. I’m not business expert (and I look forward to my friends in business weighing in on this basic idea), but as far as I understand it legal bankruptcy freezes assets and opens the doors for someone else to come in and scoop up a very devalued company.

This is where the fun really starts. As an entity the United States of America is a very devalued commodity. I’m not saying it has no global value, it is just that when that value is weighed against its debt the net is well into the negative.

Canada, on the other hand, while not the richest of nations is in relatively stable financial condition. The United States, as a people, could benefit immensely from Canada’s help. Our financial wisdom, combined with our willingness to sell off unneeded assests (I hear there’s a really large neutrally painted house in the North East that wouldn’t be necessary any more.

It’s in a fairly high crime area, but the size, land value and historicity of the place could get a pretty good dollar even in todays downturned real estate market.) would make Canada an ideal group to clean up the organizational chaos in the Corporation of the United States of America. We’d likely want to amalgamate some of the current states into provinces to make things easer. Certainly some of these new provinces wouldn’t want to be a part of us, but we’re used to dealing with that.

Of course, healthcare reform would happen by virtue of this benevolent take over. Many of the concerns about Canada’s healthcare revolve around a lack of doctors. It seems that many of our best our moving to the United States to practice because they can make more money there. By helping our neighbours to the south in this way the doctor shortage would be taking care of making the reforms that Canada would be presenting far less open to failure.

Obviously, in order to avoid slipping right back into the current debt level spending cuts would be necessary. This seems to be a relatively simple thing to overcome because our radically different defense policy will automatically lead to dramatically decreased spending in this area. No longer paying tarriffs (I know…they shouldn’t be happening any way with NAFTA, but they are.) will save additional dollars. Better organized banking will help the economy recover faster, thus increasing spending and tax income.

I know that many within the borders of the United States of America might not like this proposal. They can’t imagine having to sing Oh, Canada! (despite it’s musical and lyrical superiority) or pledging allegiance to a flag with a maple leaf on it. I’m sure the stars and stripes would be able to be kept as a part of the provincial flag. We aren’t a country that demands that past cultures be forsaken. In fact, I’m sure we could find a way to see many cultural exercises preserved. We could do two Thanksgivings. You can still call November 11 Veterans day in your provinces. We can even accommodate local cultural traditions. For example, the Yankees love to sing “God Bless America” during the seventh inning stretch. We could keep the tradition alive and subsitute “God Save the Queen!”

So think about it, America. As a nation we care deeply about what happens to those around us. We’d love to do anything we could do to help. I’d even be willing to bet that Obama could become prime minister and the head of the Liberal Party of Canada (or maybe the Green Party!).

This past week two very shocking, very public incidents involving have sparked a flurry of media attention and global commentary.

The first occurred on Saturday, September 12. Defending US Open tennis women’s champion, Serena Williams was called for a foot falled at a crucial point in the second set of an epic semi-final battle. After thinking about it for a moment she turned towards the linewoman who had made the call and unleashed a profanity laced tirade about how she was going to “ram the *&#$ ball down her *&$% throat.” Her actions cost her a second unsportsmanlike conduct warning, a point and ultimately the match.

The second incident occurred at the MTV Video Awards on Sunday, September 13. Nineteen year old Taylor Swift won the award for female video of the year making this young star the first country artist to ever win an MTV video award. As she was settling into her acceptance speech rap artist Kanye West came onto the stage and took the microphone from Swift and proceeded to tell everyone that Beyonce should have won the award because she had “one of the best videos of all time”. His actions spoiled the moment for the teenage award winner and have been universally condemned. Incidentally, his argument was later validated when Beyonce won the award for video of the year. Beyonce invited Swift to the stage at this point to complete her speech, but for West it was too late to take back what he had done.

These incidents got me thinking about how we as Christians often act towards those who don’t have the same beliefs as we do. They got me thinking about how we sometimes act towards each other. Like Williams and West, in our efforts to make our point we often resort to aggressive, rude or cruel tactics. We believe so much in the truth we hold to that we forget about the person on the other side of the argument. The truth of scripture is that there is something above all level of knowledge, wisdom and faith. That something reflects the essence of the God we are to reflect to each other and the world around us. That something is love. (see 1 Corinthians 13)

Serena and Kanye may have been right in the points they made. I’m not qualified to discern that. But watching them act in such a way that their reputation is perhaps irreparably harmed reminded me that being right is no excuse for being a jerk. Above all else, if we are to rightly represent the God we claim to love, we must put on love.

The Nines leadership webcast (or whatever they called it) was last week. I just now got around to watching Skye Jethani’s video from this event. Awesome stuff.

Over at Skyebox, Skye Jethani is working through a series of posts about the bids for the 2016 Olympic Games. I’m a big fan of the Olympics, but have never paid much attention to the bidding process. It’s kind of fun to read his analysis of the different components of the bid. His ties to Chicago make his favourite very clear.

Skye’s thoughts on the logos.

Skye’s thoughts on the mottos.

He comments that in Madrid’s bid, “Together the motto and logo seem to communicate that Madrid isn’t taking this bid very seriously.” I read that and looked at the logo again.

Maybe it’s just me, but when I looked at it again I was struck by how the bright red middle finger just seems to stick out from the rest of the hand. Maybe they aren’t taking it seriously? I can’t help but wonder if perhaps Madrid assumes that the ridiculous politics of the IOC is going to give the bid to someone else anyway so they are choosing to send the IOC a message through their logo.

I’ve started a blog over at www.riversidechurch.ca that is written specifically to my local church community. Sometimes there will be things there that might be of broader interest so I’ll be parallel posting them over here. This is one such post. Let me know what you think!

In our adult Bible Learning Time on Sunday morning we got into a discussion about how Christians live in the public sphere as people of influence. As we shared we considered the fact that in the sphere of public education teachers are no longer able to pray, preach or proceletyze publicly, however other world views are often able to be presented and promoted.

It is true that the “status” of Christianity has changed in Canada. While churches still retain many benefits (such as charitable status and not having to pay property taxes) the state endorsed proclaimations of our faith are dimishing.

As I got to thinking about this, it occurred to me that while I regularly read stories lamenting a decline of the evangelical population in the North-Western world, there are messages about astounding numbers of people coming to faith in Christ in countries such as China, India and even Egypt. Many in North America are fighting because they are losing a special place in the eyes of the government, and they are claiming that this is causing the church to suffer. In the mean time Christianity is growing and thriving in nations where, not only does it not have primacy, Christians are economically, emotionally and physically oppressed.

When we look at the history of the church we see that one the strongest time of growth was in the first 200-300 years of Christianity. This is a time when Christianity was illegal by Roman law. While the number of people associated with the Christian church increased during and after Constantine 1’s rule starting in 312 BC, it is clear that the political and economic gain available by joining the Christian emperor in worship was a primary motivator for that growth. In 380 BC emperor Theodosius 1 declared Christianity that adhered to the Nicene Creed the only legitimate imperial religion. Did numbers increase during this time? Of course…but that doesn’t mean mass true conversion.

It doesn’t take a deep look at life and history to show us that it is easy to carry out the public appearance of Christianity (e.g. praying in school, putting up posters with Scripture on it, having a fish sticker on your bumper, etc.) when it doesn’t cost you anything…and might even gain you something. The difficulty is that many people have done these things and continue to fight for them, but do all this with an arrogance and pride that is certainly not Christian. They seem to want the power that comes from special position more than they want humility and love that comes from a heart that is truly intimate with Jesus.

The test of Christians is not whether we can pray or preach when we are given the platform by the popular majority, but whether we can show love and peace when we are truly oppressed and beaten. I’m not sure North American Christians, on the whole, are doing a very good job at this so far…and so far very few of us are truly oppressed. We’ve just lost some of the perks we’ve gotten used to.

Phil Vischer had a dream of influencing the world for Christ through high quality Christian media. His dream became Big Idea, the production company for Veggie-Tales and by some accounts that dream was accomplished. By many other accounts he failed miserably, (Read Phil’s story here: http://www.philvischer.com/?p=38)

Despite being one of the most influencial Christians in the media world in the past 20 years, this is what he says about Christian influence:

I am growing increasingly convinced that if everyone of these kids burning with passion to write a hit Christian song or make that hit Christian movie or start that hit Christian ministry to change the world would instead focus their passion on walking with God on a daily basis, the world would change…. So why do I believe a thousand kids walking with God will have more impact on the world than one kid making a hit movie? Because the world learns about God not by watching Christian movies, but by watching Christians.

I agree with Phil. We can promote our ideology, doctrine and standards of morality all we want, but ultimately it is how we live that is supposed to reveal Jesus. Instead of saying, “Look at our music! Look at our programs! Look at what a great time we have together!” I pray that we will be a people who are solely focused on living in such a way that we “let [our] light shine before men, that they may see [our] good deeds and praise [our] Father in heaven.” (Matthew 5:16)

Rarely do emotions get the best of me while I’m making breakfast. This morning was the exception. You know how every once in a while a combination of sight and smell will take you back to a place from your past. This morning the combination of CheezeWhiz, butter and toast did just that.

When I was young Cheez Whiz was a luxury that my family almost never had…but Grandma and Grampa always had it. And every year for my birthday (and for the occasional special treat) I got to stay overnight at their apartment. We’d watch some sports on TV (because I didn’t have cable at home and could get very little sports), my grandfather would try to educate me on real music and we’d get some sleep in order to go shoe shopping the next day. In the morning I’d always be free to choose what I wanted for breakfast and inevitably I would as for Cheez Whiz on toast. Grandma would put the toast in the toaster and when it was just right she’d take it out, put on a good helping of butter and then put on a layer of Cheez Whiz. I’m not talking about a decent, “enough for a treat, but this stuff ain’t cheap” layer. I’m talking about a “have a little toast with your Cheez Whiz layer.” Mmmmmm.

iopipipijji9ujoi

Sorry about that…I was wiping the drool off the keyboard. (I don’t get layers of Cheez Whiz on my toast now that I’m paying for the Cheez Whiz!)

Anyway…this morning I was back at Grandma and Grandpa’s apartment in Waterloo. I was enjoying Cheez Whiz on toast and musical education and sports and hugs and peanuts in the bowl and a candy from the candy dish as I walked out their door to run down the stairs racing the elevator. Most of all I was with Grandma and Grandpa again. I miss them, but my visit this morning facilitated by my breakfast was really nice.

What are some of grandparent memories like this that you have?

Since I mentioned the potentially difficult meeting in a previous post, I feel the need to update those who may be wondering how it went. Situations like this can generally go a) better than expected, b) as well as expected, c) as poorly as expected or d) worse than expected. This meeting transcended those categories. It was option a) with a several pluses after it. Those who can been questioning my acting in the role I have been called to serve admitted that they were wrong in what they had said previously and affirmed me in what I have been called to do. This happened without a battle or trying to get them to do it. I’m not naive enough to believe that things are going to always be easy from here on out, but by affirming my role in front of the other elders there is an accountability for the words that were said on Thursday night.

This fall we’re heading into the first real evaluation, planning and visioning time that, as far as I can tell, the elders at this church have ever done. I appreciate prayers for me as I lead this process and for our elders as they enter brand new territory that may not be comfortable for everyone.