Once again, Dan Dick's blog, United Methodeviations, brings forward a critical issue that those of us in the emerging missional movement have been grappling with for some time-- evangelism.
And this one may strike us closer to home, and perhaps be a bigger challenge for some of us than we may have imagined.
What Dan's research found is that United Methodists in the US do not engage in personal evangelism, by and large. Instead, if they do anything at all with evangelism, it is either "representational evangelism" or "passive evangelism." Representational evangelism means either letting a committee (evangelism committee) do the work of evangelism for the congregation or inviting people to come to worship or other church-related events, and trusting that that invitation and that context will somehow do evangelism for us. Passive evangelism means either attracting people to professionally produced one-way events (seeker services as example), or non-interactive media advertising, or trying to suggest that how we live, in general, is its own witness not requiring words.
Probably many of us in the emerging missional movement have given up on institutions doing anything helpful toward real transformation, personal or social. Representational evangelism is thus something we're more likely to critique than to do, much less endorse. And as for the marketing and seeker service models of passive evangelism, I think most of us have ruled that out on principle long ago. "Attractional is not missional" might be the way we put it.
But across the larger emerging missional conversation, perhaps especially at the intersections of critical-evangelical and mainline streams, the "non-verbal witness is enough" element of passive evangelism has often been modeled as a more authentic way forward than more direct, personal models. I see that stream of the conversation, at least, being more reactive against a sort of merely doctrinal and transactional approach to evangelism (perhaps epitomized in something like Campus Crusade's "Four Spiritual Laws"), and in that opposition generally commending the "authenticity" of the lived life without words over any communication of words at all.
The missiological element of our larger conversation ought to be ringing alarm bells at that assertion, however. What we know from missiology-- also affirmed in sociology and even neuroscience-- is that almost no "complex" action on our part has coherence for another without some sort of framework in which, or against which, to interpret it. Very simple things we can all understand-- a look of surprise or fear, or a warm embrace. But these very simple, "hardwired" immediate responses do not, in themselves, provide enough of an interpretive background to make any sense of a concept like "following Jesus," much less salvation. It is precisely language and culture that provide that interpretive framework.
There is a famous quote about evangelism often attributed to Francis of Assisi. "Preach the gospel at all times. If necessary, use words." There is no evidence from his writings or any contemporary writings about him that he actually ever said these words. But if he did, or if he or other Christian leaders said anything like them, they were being said to a culture (13th century Italy) that was already thoroughly Christianized and had been for nearly a thousand years. What Francis found lacking in Italy in his day was not a failure to teach Christian doctrine; it was a failure to live the way of Jesus.
For those of us in North America in the 21st century, at least most of us who may be reading this blog, the culture around us is perhaps now only vestigially Christian. There is in the culture at large a lack of teaching of the Christian faith, and with it a lack of other cultural correlative practices that support that teaching. The cultural supports remaining that could interpret actions without words as any sort of proclamation of the good news of God's reign are in a jumbled shambles at best.
So as we consider what ReBeing Evangelism requires of us, at the very least it requires both lives that correspond to the way of Jesus AND a way of telling others, for whom few if any coherent cultural supports exist, why we live as we live and inviting them, personally, to follow Jesus with us.
Congregations as we have them are probably not up to either task: teaching the way forthrightly and accountably or helping those so taught to communicate it effectively wherever they go. That's not a condemnation of congregations. It's just an observation of reality.
This is part of why organic groups or accountable discipleship groups or mission groups or whatever we call these small bands of sisters and brothers who are commited to follow Jesus and help each other do the same are so critical in our day. The best hands on teaching of the way of Jesus will happen here. So will the best hands on teaching and exploration of how to communicate directly and personally in words, ideas and, actually, culture-- the culture we create together-- the good news of God's reign and the invitation to follow Jesus with us.
ReBe evangelism... it's not just for the settled congregations or the Enlightenment principlists or the pushy evangelicals anymore...
Peace in Christ,
Taylor Burton-Edwards
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
ReBe Hymnal
Companions,
As some of you may have heard by now, the effort to create a new United Methodist Hymnal for the United States has been officially halted. A link to the UMNS story/press release is included here and below.
Hymnals have been very important in Methodism from the earliest days. Back in England, the hymnals published by John and Charles Wesley were not found in pews of congregations, but in the shirt pockets of Methodists. Why? Because in most of the churches in England at the time, including the Church of England and many Presbyterian and Baptist groups, hymn-singing was banned in public worship. Why? Because what was to be sung were the pure words of scripture (psalms) and the ancient prayers of the church (spiritual songs), not the "man-made" texts one found in hymns.
There were some notable exceptions. Isaac Watts wrote for his fairly Calvinist, separatist congregation, and other congregations of like order had no trouble singing these texts. But they were the minority, the vast minority in England in the 18th century. They were the minority in North America at the time, too.
Which meant, for the Methodists, most of whom would have attended Church of England congregations, the hymnals were for Sunday night meetings of the society, for class meetings, and for daily personal and family use.
Think of the early Methodist hymnals as the iPod (R) of Methodists. They were literally carrying their songs with them wherever they went.
This was hymnal as missional collection. This was hymnal intended and practiced as "making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world." Why? Because they weren't singing these songs "in church"-- and certainly not only "in church." They were singing them every day of their lives, wherever they went.
With the demise of the current US hymnal project for the UMC comes the opportunity not only to re-think what a hymnal for US congregations might be, but to ReBe a hymnal in the Wesleyan tradition-- to bring about a new Methodist Missional Hymnal, a missional iPod (R) for the 21st century.
Keep in mind, too, that the early Methodist hymnals were all "public domain." Individual intellectual property rights (and with it, copyright law and DRM) didn't exist back then. That meant that these songs could spread freely in both print and oral versions and mutate as they needed to locally, and no one got into trouble for it (John Wesley's almost imperious "Instructions for Singing" notwithstanding).
It was missional text and music that could go viral. It was a collection that could "fractal."
So who wants to ReBe a hymnal for the UMC-- one that substantially contributes toward the project of making disciples of Jesus Christ who function as missionaries of God's reign wherever they are because disciples sing these things wherever they are and can legally spread them freely wherever they go?
Peace in Christ,
Taylor Burton-Edwards
Plans for UM Hymnal Revision Halted for 2009-2012 Quadrennium
As some of you may have heard by now, the effort to create a new United Methodist Hymnal for the United States has been officially halted. A link to the UMNS story/press release is included here and below.
Hymnals have been very important in Methodism from the earliest days. Back in England, the hymnals published by John and Charles Wesley were not found in pews of congregations, but in the shirt pockets of Methodists. Why? Because in most of the churches in England at the time, including the Church of England and many Presbyterian and Baptist groups, hymn-singing was banned in public worship. Why? Because what was to be sung were the pure words of scripture (psalms) and the ancient prayers of the church (spiritual songs), not the "man-made" texts one found in hymns.
There were some notable exceptions. Isaac Watts wrote for his fairly Calvinist, separatist congregation, and other congregations of like order had no trouble singing these texts. But they were the minority, the vast minority in England in the 18th century. They were the minority in North America at the time, too.
Which meant, for the Methodists, most of whom would have attended Church of England congregations, the hymnals were for Sunday night meetings of the society, for class meetings, and for daily personal and family use.
Think of the early Methodist hymnals as the iPod (R) of Methodists. They were literally carrying their songs with them wherever they went.
This was hymnal as missional collection. This was hymnal intended and practiced as "making disciples of Jesus Christ for the transformation of the world." Why? Because they weren't singing these songs "in church"-- and certainly not only "in church." They were singing them every day of their lives, wherever they went.
With the demise of the current US hymnal project for the UMC comes the opportunity not only to re-think what a hymnal for US congregations might be, but to ReBe a hymnal in the Wesleyan tradition-- to bring about a new Methodist Missional Hymnal, a missional iPod (R) for the 21st century.
Keep in mind, too, that the early Methodist hymnals were all "public domain." Individual intellectual property rights (and with it, copyright law and DRM) didn't exist back then. That meant that these songs could spread freely in both print and oral versions and mutate as they needed to locally, and no one got into trouble for it (John Wesley's almost imperious "Instructions for Singing" notwithstanding).
It was missional text and music that could go viral. It was a collection that could "fractal."
So who wants to ReBe a hymnal for the UMC-- one that substantially contributes toward the project of making disciples of Jesus Christ who function as missionaries of God's reign wherever they are because disciples sing these things wherever they are and can legally spread them freely wherever they go?
Peace in Christ,
Taylor Burton-Edwards
Plans for UM Hymnal Revision Halted for 2009-2012 Quadrennium
Monday, May 18, 2009
ReBe Fractalling Movement
Companions,
In a blog post retweeted this morning by @emergentvillage, Mark Sayers makes the argument that "the emerging missional church" has already reached its critical carrying capacity as a discrete movement united against a "common enemy" and is showing signs of fracturing into what he thinks might be irretrievable dissolution.
I beg to differ.
First, go read his post (linked above and here). That will give the context, to which I will try to be fair here without simply reproducing it.
The shape of his argument depends upon comparing what is now happening in the emerging missional movement with the Protestant Reformation. The Reformation initially was pretty united against Rome. Even in their differences, everyone agreed on that, and that kept Protestantism per se coherent as a movement, perhaps well into the 18th century. But in time, he says, "definition over against" gave way to "self-definition" which meant the various groups ended up having more to fight about amongst themselves and thus splintered further and further. Over time, the trajectory of this sort of endless splintering is dissolution.
Several problems with the analysis, I think.
For one, it presumes that there was A Protestant church, per se. That's a pretty big presumption, and historically not a terribly good one. Once the various Protestantisms got going, there were always many, with many different theologies, and they were as ready to fight each other from Day 1 as they were ready to fight Rome. Witness Calvin's Geneva executing Michael Servetus, and the need for wars to occur in Germany to get to the "peace of Augsburg's" political formula, cuius regio, eius religio-- and then more wars of religion after that still! And yes, these were not just "Catholic/Protestant." They were inter-Protestant as well.
With the exception of the anabaptists and spiritualists, the various vying Protestantisms waged their "fights"(intellectual and military!) from a thoroughly institutionalized perspective-- namely, the sponsorship, armies, and laws of the states/duchies/nations/towns/cantons in which they found themselves.
Thus the only coherent thing one could actually find among these various Protestant experiments, from Day 1, wasn't theology but politics. Whatever their religion was, Rome wasn't going to call the shots for it going forward. It wasn't opposition to Roman theology per se, though that was not unimportant. It was opposition to Roman control of theology. If one can call this a movement at all, it was thus a "movement" of political revolt against the political claims of Rome or anyone else (including other Protestants from other states) to control religion and theology locally.
Honestly, does this sound like a "religious movement"? Or does it sound much more like institutional re-shuffling?
For another, Sayers argument presumes the "emerging missional church" is "A" church as well. It isn't. It never has been. I cannot imagine it will be anytime soon. That's why I usually refer to what we're part of as "the emerging missional way" and describe it more as the confluence of four streams-- missiological, theological (particularly Trinitarian and incarnational theologies), spiritual formation (approach to "faith" as "practiced faithfulness") and the worship practices that reflect whatever other confluences are present, with a particular focus on "connected indigeneity."
Several of the "fractions" or "breakaways" Sayers describes really were never part of these four streams to begin with-- including the Neo-Claphams, Digital Pentecostals, and Neo-Liberals. Neo-monastics (whom he calls "neo-anabaptists) do not generally claim that theirs is the "one right way" but rather one faithful expression of the confluence. Perhaps the only one of the groups Sayers describes that has been intentional about being a clear breakaway from "emergent" is neo-Calvinism.
So I think Sayers is misreading. It's not that the emerging missional way is "fractioning" or breaking up, it's that its ideas are "fractalling" or reproducing its DNA in all sorts of other environments, not unlike the tiny seeds of mustard weed. There needn't be one coherent crop with well-defined boundaries for the emerging missional way to spread, take root, and thrive. That it travels well in lots of places in slightly different forms is not an indicator of either dissolution or dilution of its purposes, but rather an indicator of its "evolutionary" success.
Movements that succeed in carrying forward their key causes are those that can do that very thing-- not fraction, but fractal. Methodism was doing this in England before it "fractioned" itself from the C of E officially in 1795. Even in very hostile circumstances in the US, it was doing so here as well prior to its fractioning in 1784. The Wesley brothers were right in their initially shared and re-iterated perception that breaking away to become a separate church, rather than continuing to "fractallize" as societies related to but not controlling or acting as separate churches, would lead to the very kind of dissollution of influence that Sayers describes (and I would argue, fairly correctly) for Protestantism as a whole in the West.
So as with continue to ReBe Church... how are we doing so in ways that "fractal" rather than "fraction"? And how might we keep the "fractalling" moving forward?
Peace in Christ,
Taylor Burton-Edwards
In a blog post retweeted this morning by @emergentvillage, Mark Sayers makes the argument that "the emerging missional church" has already reached its critical carrying capacity as a discrete movement united against a "common enemy" and is showing signs of fracturing into what he thinks might be irretrievable dissolution.
I beg to differ.
First, go read his post (linked above and here). That will give the context, to which I will try to be fair here without simply reproducing it.
The shape of his argument depends upon comparing what is now happening in the emerging missional movement with the Protestant Reformation. The Reformation initially was pretty united against Rome. Even in their differences, everyone agreed on that, and that kept Protestantism per se coherent as a movement, perhaps well into the 18th century. But in time, he says, "definition over against" gave way to "self-definition" which meant the various groups ended up having more to fight about amongst themselves and thus splintered further and further. Over time, the trajectory of this sort of endless splintering is dissolution.
Several problems with the analysis, I think.
For one, it presumes that there was A Protestant church, per se. That's a pretty big presumption, and historically not a terribly good one. Once the various Protestantisms got going, there were always many, with many different theologies, and they were as ready to fight each other from Day 1 as they were ready to fight Rome. Witness Calvin's Geneva executing Michael Servetus, and the need for wars to occur in Germany to get to the "peace of Augsburg's" political formula, cuius regio, eius religio-- and then more wars of religion after that still! And yes, these were not just "Catholic/Protestant." They were inter-Protestant as well.
With the exception of the anabaptists and spiritualists, the various vying Protestantisms waged their "fights"(intellectual and military!) from a thoroughly institutionalized perspective-- namely, the sponsorship, armies, and laws of the states/duchies/nations/towns/cantons in which they found themselves.
Thus the only coherent thing one could actually find among these various Protestant experiments, from Day 1, wasn't theology but politics. Whatever their religion was, Rome wasn't going to call the shots for it going forward. It wasn't opposition to Roman theology per se, though that was not unimportant. It was opposition to Roman control of theology. If one can call this a movement at all, it was thus a "movement" of political revolt against the political claims of Rome or anyone else (including other Protestants from other states) to control religion and theology locally.
Honestly, does this sound like a "religious movement"? Or does it sound much more like institutional re-shuffling?
For another, Sayers argument presumes the "emerging missional church" is "A" church as well. It isn't. It never has been. I cannot imagine it will be anytime soon. That's why I usually refer to what we're part of as "the emerging missional way" and describe it more as the confluence of four streams-- missiological, theological (particularly Trinitarian and incarnational theologies), spiritual formation (approach to "faith" as "practiced faithfulness") and the worship practices that reflect whatever other confluences are present, with a particular focus on "connected indigeneity."
Several of the "fractions" or "breakaways" Sayers describes really were never part of these four streams to begin with-- including the Neo-Claphams, Digital Pentecostals, and Neo-Liberals. Neo-monastics (whom he calls "neo-anabaptists) do not generally claim that theirs is the "one right way" but rather one faithful expression of the confluence. Perhaps the only one of the groups Sayers describes that has been intentional about being a clear breakaway from "emergent" is neo-Calvinism.
So I think Sayers is misreading. It's not that the emerging missional way is "fractioning" or breaking up, it's that its ideas are "fractalling" or reproducing its DNA in all sorts of other environments, not unlike the tiny seeds of mustard weed. There needn't be one coherent crop with well-defined boundaries for the emerging missional way to spread, take root, and thrive. That it travels well in lots of places in slightly different forms is not an indicator of either dissolution or dilution of its purposes, but rather an indicator of its "evolutionary" success.
Movements that succeed in carrying forward their key causes are those that can do that very thing-- not fraction, but fractal. Methodism was doing this in England before it "fractioned" itself from the C of E officially in 1795. Even in very hostile circumstances in the US, it was doing so here as well prior to its fractioning in 1784. The Wesley brothers were right in their initially shared and re-iterated perception that breaking away to become a separate church, rather than continuing to "fractallize" as societies related to but not controlling or acting as separate churches, would lead to the very kind of dissollution of influence that Sayers describes (and I would argue, fairly correctly) for Protestantism as a whole in the West.
So as with continue to ReBe Church... how are we doing so in ways that "fractal" rather than "fraction"? And how might we keep the "fractalling" moving forward?
Peace in Christ,
Taylor Burton-Edwards
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
ReBe Ordination... Updated
Companions,
Tony Jones has issued a sort of wrap up since this blog was originally posted. You can find it here. I've offered comment there as well. I'm not sure what it means that he took up one of my replies to him right off the bat-- maybe the term "ontological shibboleth" just sounded so provocative he couldn't resist hitting it first.
I remain grateful that Tony has raised these issues. -- T.
If you've been out on the emerging/emergent blogosphere much in the last week or so, you are probably well aware of Tony Jones' recent call for denominations to radically reform ordination-- combined with more than a bit of vitriol against denominations and those who choose to try to be ordained in them. He's also been trying to get the leader of Presbymergent, Adam Walker Cleaveland, to walk away from PCUSA and accept ordination from him and other emergent types.
So far, Adam's not walking.
And so far, Tony's gotten more than a bit of pushback for both the vitriol and the attempt to ordain someone with no process in place and no actual ecclesial community behind it.
The questions Tony raises about ordination are often good ones, though. At the heart of them is a concern that ordination seems to convey and reinforce the notion that those ordained are both "better than" and "set over" other people in the church, and so perpetuate a laity-clergy divide.
By virtue of my role at GBOD, I'm one of the co-authors and the "editor in chief" of the Ordinal (the ritual and the guidance for the using the ritual for ordination and related services) for The United Methodist Church. So the whole question of ordination is of more than academic concern to me. It's an important part of what I work on, regularly, in the life of this church.
I don't take Tony's questions as a threat. (His vitriol-- not so helpful!). I see them as an opportunity, perhaps especially for us here, many of whom may be still in the midst of ordination processes and some of whom may have connections with Boards of Ordained Ministry who could influence how these actually play out where you are.
For the record, I have no connection to any Board of Ordained Ministry, and never have to date, and I am not on the Ministry Study Committee that will be coming up with new recommendations in 2012-- so the only card I hold is the ritual one-- not the process one.
So what I can offer here is a bit of insight on the principles that guide the conversation and the work of the Ordinal Revision Committee (the folks who work on the ritual itself).
If I were to try to summarize our understanding of ordination most succinctly-- and you can see this played out more fully in the current Ordinal and the Book of Discipline-- it is this:
a) An act of the Holy Spirit
b) through the church
c) conveyed by the person of the bishop
d) the people consenting
My question is this-- what practices would you commend to help us as United Methodists actually live out these ideas, both ritually and practically, through the ordination process and through the lives of the ordained and the people among whom they serve?
I look forward to your insights and replies.
Peace in Christ,
Taylor Burton-Edwards
Tony Jones has issued a sort of wrap up since this blog was originally posted. You can find it here. I've offered comment there as well. I'm not sure what it means that he took up one of my replies to him right off the bat-- maybe the term "ontological shibboleth" just sounded so provocative he couldn't resist hitting it first.
I remain grateful that Tony has raised these issues. -- T.
If you've been out on the emerging/emergent blogosphere much in the last week or so, you are probably well aware of Tony Jones' recent call for denominations to radically reform ordination-- combined with more than a bit of vitriol against denominations and those who choose to try to be ordained in them. He's also been trying to get the leader of Presbymergent, Adam Walker Cleaveland, to walk away from PCUSA and accept ordination from him and other emergent types.
So far, Adam's not walking.
And so far, Tony's gotten more than a bit of pushback for both the vitriol and the attempt to ordain someone with no process in place and no actual ecclesial community behind it.
The questions Tony raises about ordination are often good ones, though. At the heart of them is a concern that ordination seems to convey and reinforce the notion that those ordained are both "better than" and "set over" other people in the church, and so perpetuate a laity-clergy divide.
By virtue of my role at GBOD, I'm one of the co-authors and the "editor in chief" of the Ordinal (the ritual and the guidance for the using the ritual for ordination and related services) for The United Methodist Church. So the whole question of ordination is of more than academic concern to me. It's an important part of what I work on, regularly, in the life of this church.
I don't take Tony's questions as a threat. (His vitriol-- not so helpful!). I see them as an opportunity, perhaps especially for us here, many of whom may be still in the midst of ordination processes and some of whom may have connections with Boards of Ordained Ministry who could influence how these actually play out where you are.
For the record, I have no connection to any Board of Ordained Ministry, and never have to date, and I am not on the Ministry Study Committee that will be coming up with new recommendations in 2012-- so the only card I hold is the ritual one-- not the process one.
So what I can offer here is a bit of insight on the principles that guide the conversation and the work of the Ordinal Revision Committee (the folks who work on the ritual itself).
If I were to try to summarize our understanding of ordination most succinctly-- and you can see this played out more fully in the current Ordinal and the Book of Discipline-- it is this:
Ordination is an act of the Holy Spirit through the church conveyed by the person of the Bishop, the people consenting.
That's the principle. Or one might say, those are the ideals. There are 4 pieces here, each important, each intentional, and each reflected both in our ritual (we hope!) and reflective of the principles underlying ordination across the history of the whole church.a) An act of the Holy Spirit
b) through the church
c) conveyed by the person of the bishop
d) the people consenting
My question is this-- what practices would you commend to help us as United Methodists actually live out these ideas, both ritually and practically, through the ordination process and through the lives of the ordained and the people among whom they serve?
I look forward to your insights and replies.
Peace in Christ,
Taylor Burton-Edwards
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
ReBe Church
Companions,
ReBe Church... has kind of a bebop ring to it, eh?
UMCom has launched its ReThink Church campaign with incredible savvy, much fanfare, many resources, and more to come. One of our tribe, Don Heatley (Visible Church) is helping out with some of the video work. Those of you who haven't seen Don's great work-- you really ought to!
It seems to me, at least, that many of us who would identify as emerging/missional have been about doing more than simply reThinking what church might be. We've been reBeing church-- in all sorts of ways, in many settings.
We've been talking about-- and incarnating-- openness and hospitality in our "public" settings (congregations and other places where we act publically) AND helping people live accountably (with courage to correct and even let folks go who really aren't into this) in smaller group settings.
And we've become or are learning how to be better partners with all sorts of folks, locally and globally, not all of whom might agree with our theology but who do share a common passion around mission that we would say, and do say, incarnates the mission and reign of God in Jesus who is transforming the world.
Many of us are already doing all these things.
When we gather this fall at Lockerbie Central UMC in Indianapolis, our point isn't to do any more reThinking, but to experience and commit to reBeing church in its fullness even more than we are now-- wherever we are, wherever we go.
ReBe Church... yeah!
Peace in Christ,
Taylor Burton-Edwards
ReBe Church... has kind of a bebop ring to it, eh?
UMCom has launched its ReThink Church campaign with incredible savvy, much fanfare, many resources, and more to come. One of our tribe, Don Heatley (Visible Church) is helping out with some of the video work. Those of you who haven't seen Don's great work-- you really ought to!
It seems to me, at least, that many of us who would identify as emerging/missional have been about doing more than simply reThinking what church might be. We've been reBeing church-- in all sorts of ways, in many settings.
We've been talking about-- and incarnating-- openness and hospitality in our "public" settings (congregations and other places where we act publically) AND helping people live accountably (with courage to correct and even let folks go who really aren't into this) in smaller group settings.
And we've become or are learning how to be better partners with all sorts of folks, locally and globally, not all of whom might agree with our theology but who do share a common passion around mission that we would say, and do say, incarnates the mission and reign of God in Jesus who is transforming the world.
Many of us are already doing all these things.
When we gather this fall at Lockerbie Central UMC in Indianapolis, our point isn't to do any more reThinking, but to experience and commit to reBeing church in its fullness even more than we are now-- wherever we are, wherever we go.
ReBe Church... yeah!
Peace in Christ,
Taylor Burton-Edwards
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
Set Up Trip Ups
All,
One of the two services that I lead has outgrown its worship space. We have support to move it into the main worship space that houses the largest of our six services, and our leadership group is in the process of putting together a plan to do so.
The trick is, we will now for the first time be doing a set up in between the large existing service and our service. From those of you that are doing a weekly set up, I would love to hear about the top three things that have tripped you up, or the top three things you have learned about this kind of set up, so we can hopefully learn from you and plan for these kind of issues.
Thanks for any thoughts you might share!
Peace...
Dave
One of the two services that I lead has outgrown its worship space. We have support to move it into the main worship space that houses the largest of our six services, and our leadership group is in the process of putting together a plan to do so.
The trick is, we will now for the first time be doing a set up in between the large existing service and our service. From those of you that are doing a weekly set up, I would love to hear about the top three things that have tripped you up, or the top three things you have learned about this kind of set up, so we can hopefully learn from you and plan for these kind of issues.
Thanks for any thoughts you might share!
Peace...
Dave
Twittering the Gospel
Companions
Emergent Village Re-Tweeted the following link this morning-- an article on Rob Bell and what the gospel might look like if it were reduced to 140 characters (the Twitter limit).
So here's the link:
http://is.gd/wYzH
Check it out-- and post your version there, or here, or on our emergingumc twibe on Twitter (http://twibes.com/emergingumc)
And FWIW, here's my stab at it (also on the twibe):
God's reign has begun. This is good news for the poor. Jesus shows us how, and is how. We learn how and live how with him, following him.
Now-- your turn!
Peace,
Taylor
Emergent Village Re-Tweeted the following link this morning-- an article on Rob Bell and what the gospel might look like if it were reduced to 140 characters (the Twitter limit).
So here's the link:
http://is.gd/wYzH
Check it out-- and post your version there, or here, or on our emergingumc twibe on Twitter (http://twibes.com/emergingumc)
And FWIW, here's my stab at it (also on the twibe):
God's reign has begun. This is good news for the poor. Jesus shows us how, and is how. We learn how and live how with him, following him.
Now-- your turn!
Peace,
Taylor
40 Days of Prayer for the UMC
Dear friends, I want to extend an invitation to join with me and others around the country (and world) to be in prayer for the United Methodist Church. On May 18th a grass-roots movement to pray for the church will begin. Young adults (clergy and lay-persons) from across the denomination have written prayers as a part of this movement. Each day the UM Young Clergy website will post a new prayer.
I invite you to join us in this prayer movement by subscribing to the prayer feed, or going here to pray the prayer for the day.
Thank you in advance for praying, may you experience the life-giving movement of God in your life, and together may we be open to God's life-giving movement for all of Creation, and how we are called to be a faithful part of that movement and witness in the world.
Grace and peace,
Chris Bennett
Monday, May 04, 2009
To Twitter or not to Twitter in Worship-- This Guy Says No
http://justwallpaper.wordpress.com/2009/05/04/4-reasons-to-stop-twittering-in-church/
What do you say?
What do you say?
Sunday, May 03, 2009
Twittering Worship?
Companions,
So... Time Magazine ran an article today online about how Twitter is being used in worship...
George Bullard had a Facebook post about that earlier today (May 3)... and has gotten several comments there.
We've had some fairly lively conversation about it in the Order of Saint Luke CyberChapter (and no, it's not dominated by censorious tech-haters!)...
So I thought this could be a good place for some more conversation. I'll post the link to the twibe, too.
So... read the article
HERE
and discuss amongst yourselves...
Peace in Christ,
Taylor Burton-Edwards
So... Time Magazine ran an article today online about how Twitter is being used in worship...
George Bullard had a Facebook post about that earlier today (May 3)... and has gotten several comments there.
We've had some fairly lively conversation about it in the Order of Saint Luke CyberChapter (and no, it's not dominated by censorious tech-haters!)...
So I thought this could be a good place for some more conversation. I'll post the link to the twibe, too.
So... read the article
HERE
and discuss amongst yourselves...
Peace in Christ,
Taylor Burton-Edwards
A Twibe for Those Who'd Like One...
Companions...
We're on this blog. We're on Google Groups. (Yeah-- how many of you knew that?) And now... we can be on Twitter via our brand new Twibe.
Let me know if a Facebook Group would be helpful, too.
If you're interested in this, just join at the link above (embedded in the title) or by going to http://twibes.com/emergingumc
Peace in Christ,
Taylor Burton-Edwards
We're on this blog. We're on Google Groups. (Yeah-- how many of you knew that?) And now... we can be on Twitter via our brand new Twibe.
Let me know if a Facebook Group would be helpful, too.
If you're interested in this, just join at the link above (embedded in the title) or by going to http://twibes.com/emergingumc
Peace in Christ,
Taylor Burton-Edwards
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)