Companions,
If you go back into the presentation I shared at emergingumc2, on slide 14, you'll see a sketch that lists the worship and spiritual practices early Methodists would have encountered and engaged in in the various forms of Christian community in which they would have most regularly gathered on a weekly basis (congregation, class meeting, society meeting). All of these forms of gathered community engaged scripture, prayed in some way, and engaged in some sort of practice of affirming their faith (testimony and preaching in the societies, conversation around the General Rules in the class meetings, the Creed and to some degree preaching in the congregation). The larger forms (societies and congregations) also would have regularly involved sung and spoken acts of praise to God. (It is possible the class meetings did as well, but the record isn't as clear on how regular that would be).
Perhaps the chief difference between the Methodist practices and the congregational ones would have been the degree of personal engagement and expression each expected from participants. While all would have said the creed in the congregation, for example, it is likely that would have sounded more loud (since everyone was saying it at once) than particularly "heartfelt" or "expressive" of the thoughts and feelings of each person present.
That is no critique of the congregational practice of a more "impersonal corporate" recitation of the creed. It's just a way of denoting the difference in the tenor of the spiritual practices between the two kinds of communities (societies and congregations). Congregations were there to be a public voice of the Christian faith. Societies were there to encourage each one present, individually and with the support of their class meetings, to practice "acts of piety" personally. Congregational spirituality was about passing on and sustaining an imprint of the Christian faith handed down through the ages. Society spirituality was about expressing and helping each person express what that faith meant in their lives in the here and now. Both have significant value for missional Christians, even if the latter seems to have a more immediate relevance to the form of life Methodists were expected to take on.
Those "additional" Methodist practices have deep parallels both to some of the patterns of practice we know of in pre-4th century Christianity and in what later "broke off" and developed as the monastic offices of prayer. If you take a look at those offices, or better, start praying them, you can begin to see how they still retain, across centuries of development, some elements of scripture, confession, prayer and praise that corresponded to a particular need of the community or its members to support and continue their work in mission throughout the day. So it's not surprising to me that a good number of missional communities, not just neo-monastic ones, look to these offices to provide the forms of prayer for their daily life as well. In fact, The Simple Way folk are working at collecting a set of worship resources for their community (a breviary) for just this purpose. You can contribute resource suggestions for their prayer book if you like.
At the same time, I have to confess I find a lot of the language and concerns of these prayers, as they have come down to us in a variety of ways, to be more than a little off-putting. They don't seem quite to connect with the realities of our lives (or at least the reality of my life and the lives of persons with whom I've worked as pastor or in extension ministries over the years!). Surely, it's good to have a connection to older traditions even if only for the sake of the connection. But it seems to me that that wasn't the major reason the offices were developed in the first place. They weren't created primarily as a means of enshrining the old, though they do that, too. They were really developed as a means of helping missional communities encounter scripture and offer confession, prayer and praise in ways that would help re-center them on the reign of God and the people and the work before them for each day.
So I find myself wondering two things.
First, have the offices (the seven "hours" plus Vigil), as we have them, outlasted their usefulness as a means of spiritual practice for 21st century missional communities? If so, what sort of practices might we develop and commend that fit our missional context and needs for spiritual practice better?
Or, second, do the offices still basically work, but what is needed is a freshening of their shape and language to reflect more closely how each relates more immediately to the time and context of its offering during the day?
Wesley's answer, of course, was essentially to ditch the offices. He retained morning and evening prayer on Sundays, but on no other days, and also deleted the daily office lectionary in the Sunday Service of the Methodists in North America. Perhaps he reasoned that if each of the class meetings were functioning to hold each other accountable for "searching the scriptures" and "family and private prayer" (General Rule #3), you wouldn't need a prescribed way of doing these things daily. But of course, what we know is the class meetings fell by the wayside within a few decades and there was no real process in place, after that, to help folks be grounded in scripture and prayer in ways that were both connected to the historic church and relevant to their daily lives.
So assuming that Wesley's answer turned out not to work, but that his instinct (in Rule 3 and via the class meetings) that we all needed SOME way for such daily spiritual practices with clear missional grounding, what might that begin to look like where you are?
Peace in Christ,
Taylor Burton-Edwards
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Friday, November 20, 2009
another missional must-read
Companions,
After sending the piece on institutions/movements/mission/whatnot to the blog yesterday, I saw a link to this article on Twitter from TransFORMnetwork.
I think this is really helpful. It names, in one webpage, a lot of the fundamental dynamics and approaches of missional communities. It addresses the problems "missional" gets into with the "usual" ways of measuring results. And it does all of this in a descriptive more than a prescriptive way, so it really comes across (to me at least) more like a "progress report from the field"-- a status update, if you will-- than a "primer" on missional engagement.
Before you read what I will say next, please go read it. Here's the link again.
I just really wish it were titled differently.
It's called, "THE END OF CHRISTENDOM" (and yes, in all caps!).
Well, it's not the end of Christendom. Those of you who attended emergingumc2 heard me say, several times, that Christendom is not dead in North America. I'd add that it's not even a zombie-- dead but doesn't know it.
The deal now is not that Christendom is over. It's that it now has some competition as the dominant set of assumptions for how it is the community called church lives missionally. In techno-geek terms, the fact that Linux and the open source community exist and continue to grow and thrive doesn't mean that Microsoft (R) is dead or undead. It just means we know there's another way of creating and delivering operating systems and software that can be, at its best, far more reliable, adaptable, and productive than the model Microsoft and the other "proprietary" models (including Mac!) follow.
Linux and open source "fanboys" are forever saying that their model kicks Microsoft to the curb. "Microsofties" are forever saying that the open source folk don't create serious software that people want and can use, else they'd be paying for it. "I played the flute for you, and you didn't dance. I played a funeral dirge, and you didn't mourn!" So it is with this generation. Or so someone said.
Christendom isn't dead. And missional strategies for being church aren't the one right answer to all situations and settings for Christian community. We can keep talking with each other and exploring partnerships across what may appear to be a significant divide.
Closer to reality may be that the Christendom approach to being church can no longer have the impact it once did on the lives of people and communities. Many if not all of the social, political and economic "props" that kept it in place have disintegrated. But there's still enough inertia in that whole way of thinking inside and outside ecclesial communities and enough internal institutional support to keep it moving forward as a model of being church for quite some time to come, even if it may continue to decline in influence over time. That is, of course, unless or until something happens that tears it all down. And that can certainly happen!
We need to take the reality of the continued life of Christendom seriously. That reality and the assumptions that lie behind it are as much a part of the context in which we seek to live missionally as any other fact of our contexts may be. It doesn't mean we need to constrain ourselves by those assumptions in what we do or how we form and deploy disciples of Jesus. It does mean that whatever we do will, necessarily and inevitably, be at least in dialog with Christendom assumptions in the minds and lives of the people we meet.
And let's be just as clear about this. Most of the congregations we serve were founded under and continue to function primarily on Christendom assumptions.
Indeed, missional approaches can repurpose Christendom assumptions and even practices toward potentially better outcomes through creative partnerships that respect the integrity of each.
I have no idea whether Mike Oles planned it this way-- and if he did, Bravo!-- but isn't that exactly what we saw and heard come to life when we sat at Monument Circle, the geographic, religious, civic and economic center of Indianapolis, and heard a labor organizer and janitors telling us through Spanish interpreters how valuable the witness of clergy continues to be toward moving building managers to grant improved wages and health benefits to their workers? How is it that clergy got that kind of status in the business world? Christendom! But who is it that we were engaged with? A missional community, partnering with and on behalf of the poor.
Christendom isn't dead, or even undead, in North America. There are places where it's stronger and weaker, but it's alive, sometimes even happy, and on some days "feeling much better."
But we are yet alive, too, and so is God's reign that, as we know, has more ways of leavening the lump, sowing seed, reaping harvests, and spreading weeds that can feed all the birds of the air than are dreamt of in Christendom's philosophy.
Peace in Christ,
Taylor Burton-Edwards
After sending the piece on institutions/movements/mission/whatnot to the blog yesterday, I saw a link to this article on Twitter from TransFORMnetwork.
I think this is really helpful. It names, in one webpage, a lot of the fundamental dynamics and approaches of missional communities. It addresses the problems "missional" gets into with the "usual" ways of measuring results. And it does all of this in a descriptive more than a prescriptive way, so it really comes across (to me at least) more like a "progress report from the field"-- a status update, if you will-- than a "primer" on missional engagement.
Before you read what I will say next, please go read it. Here's the link again.
I just really wish it were titled differently.
It's called, "THE END OF CHRISTENDOM" (and yes, in all caps!).
Well, it's not the end of Christendom. Those of you who attended emergingumc2 heard me say, several times, that Christendom is not dead in North America. I'd add that it's not even a zombie-- dead but doesn't know it.
The deal now is not that Christendom is over. It's that it now has some competition as the dominant set of assumptions for how it is the community called church lives missionally. In techno-geek terms, the fact that Linux and the open source community exist and continue to grow and thrive doesn't mean that Microsoft (R) is dead or undead. It just means we know there's another way of creating and delivering operating systems and software that can be, at its best, far more reliable, adaptable, and productive than the model Microsoft and the other "proprietary" models (including Mac!) follow.
Linux and open source "fanboys" are forever saying that their model kicks Microsoft to the curb. "Microsofties" are forever saying that the open source folk don't create serious software that people want and can use, else they'd be paying for it. "I played the flute for you, and you didn't dance. I played a funeral dirge, and you didn't mourn!" So it is with this generation. Or so someone said.
Christendom isn't dead. And missional strategies for being church aren't the one right answer to all situations and settings for Christian community. We can keep talking with each other and exploring partnerships across what may appear to be a significant divide.
Closer to reality may be that the Christendom approach to being church can no longer have the impact it once did on the lives of people and communities. Many if not all of the social, political and economic "props" that kept it in place have disintegrated. But there's still enough inertia in that whole way of thinking inside and outside ecclesial communities and enough internal institutional support to keep it moving forward as a model of being church for quite some time to come, even if it may continue to decline in influence over time. That is, of course, unless or until something happens that tears it all down. And that can certainly happen!
We need to take the reality of the continued life of Christendom seriously. That reality and the assumptions that lie behind it are as much a part of the context in which we seek to live missionally as any other fact of our contexts may be. It doesn't mean we need to constrain ourselves by those assumptions in what we do or how we form and deploy disciples of Jesus. It does mean that whatever we do will, necessarily and inevitably, be at least in dialog with Christendom assumptions in the minds and lives of the people we meet.
And let's be just as clear about this. Most of the congregations we serve were founded under and continue to function primarily on Christendom assumptions.
Indeed, missional approaches can repurpose Christendom assumptions and even practices toward potentially better outcomes through creative partnerships that respect the integrity of each.
I have no idea whether Mike Oles planned it this way-- and if he did, Bravo!-- but isn't that exactly what we saw and heard come to life when we sat at Monument Circle, the geographic, religious, civic and economic center of Indianapolis, and heard a labor organizer and janitors telling us through Spanish interpreters how valuable the witness of clergy continues to be toward moving building managers to grant improved wages and health benefits to their workers? How is it that clergy got that kind of status in the business world? Christendom! But who is it that we were engaged with? A missional community, partnering with and on behalf of the poor.
Christendom isn't dead, or even undead, in North America. There are places where it's stronger and weaker, but it's alive, sometimes even happy, and on some days "feeling much better."
But we are yet alive, too, and so is God's reign that, as we know, has more ways of leavening the lump, sowing seed, reaping harvests, and spreading weeds that can feed all the birds of the air than are dreamt of in Christendom's philosophy.
Peace in Christ,
Taylor Burton-Edwards
Thursday, November 19, 2009
ReThink/ReBe institutions, movements, mission and whatnot...
Companions,
Just before setting out for emergingumc2, I received in my email inbox the latest edition of the Roxburgh Missional Newsletter (http://www.roxburghmissionalnet.org). It's called "Derivatives with a Twist." I thought about using it in some way at the event, but I couldn't find a good way to make it fit directly.
Go read the whole thing, it's worth it!
Here I want to focus just one one quote, though. The setup is about the wreck of a 19th century ship trying to make it through the Northwest passage and failing to do so because instead of stocking their hull with supplies for what would be a very long (2-3 years) and undoubtedly treacherous journey, they'd brought instead a sizable library (1200 volumes!), a hand organ, fine china and silverware to make a home away from home, only a 12 day supply of coal for their engines, and nowhere near enough food.
So here's the quote:
"The old binary opposites we create around missional change with their inside/outside, institution/organic, hierarchy/flat, and so forth, are like the familiar, precious silver on the bodies of those brave men lying dead in a vast, frozen loneliness."
Within this quote what I really want to focus on is "institution/organic" as a polarity. The reality is that it's not, or at least not as we typically hear it framed in UMC world.
Who among us hasn't heard leaders talk about either making the UMC into a movement again, or somehow claiming that the UMC is a movement? It's not. It a whole collection of institutions. The UMC, as such, never was otherwise.
Here's the deal. Institutions do not become movements. They also don't create movements well. They're just not set up or designed to do either of those things. Maybe there are a few counter examples out there. At the moment, I can't think of any. (Feel free to comment if you do!).
But movements often do create institutions to carry out functions that the "movement folk" don't need or want to focus on directly but that are still essential to continue to accomplish the overall purposes of the movement.
Now there's a myth out there that Roxburgh's refusal to accept the "institutional/organic" polarity addresses directly. The myth is that institutions represent something like the end-state or, in more graphic terms, the dessicated skeleton of a movement. Institutions are bad, in this way of seeing things, while movements are good. Institutions are dead while movements are alive. Institutions are rigid while movements are adaptable. Institutions are rule-bound while movements are free. So, the myth goes, we really need to move away from institutions, and focus all our energies just on movements, solely on the "organic," or even, in perhaps some of our own language, on what is "emergent" or "emerging."
It is only a myth.
Of course, like all myths, it's based on some experience of truth. And we can probably all cite numerous examples of essentially dead institutions that get in the way, stifle growth, and generally harm the life of the movements they were intended to support.
But the real truth is institutions at their very best can and do sustain movements already underway, much like Fringe in Indianapolis helps to sustain performing artists by providing the essential support systems they need to gain some traction. Or, in the software world, like Canonical backs the Ubuntu Linux project, or the Mozilla Foundation backs the browser Firefox, or Sun Microsystems backs the OpenOffice.org initiative-- all of which are themselves products of the open source software community movement. Kind of like how the Earth House Collective seeks to support Lockerbie Central UMC, as well.
And who'd have thought something called "Earth House Collective" would turn out to be more like an institution and a "church" would be more like a movement?
It's actually a case in point.
We gain nothing by living with a false polarity of institution and movement/organic. Investing solely in either end of that polarity and calling it good gets you petrification on the one end and a flash in the pan or a dribbling away of resources on the other. But networked in an accountable partnership, you get life and growth sustainable for a long, long time.
But there's one more layer of this onion to peel away... because often, the way we Methodists frame our history, we want to say the societies/class meetings were organic or movement and the congregations/ecclesial superstructures were institutions.
And that's a myth, too.
They were ALL institutions.
They were institutions designed to nourish different kinds of things, and so the Methodist pieces may have felt more "movementy" than the congregational ones. But they, too, were institutions. They were structured ways of relating to each other designed to accomplish a particular mission.
What was different wasn't whether one was institution and the other a movement. What was different was that the Methodist structures/institutions were designed to support the intentional formation and deployment of disciples of Jesus into his mission in the world while congregations, for the most part, were not, but were instead designed to be the official public format of Christian community in a particular place.
So where was the movement if not "contained" or "created" in some way by the Methodist structures?
It was in the hearts and hands and heads of people. It was in their passion to bear witness to and be part of God's reign happening in the world around them, a passion so compelling it started spreading as a social contagion, because they got off their chairs and out of their buildings and did something about it.
The Methodist structures didn't create any of that-- the Holy Spirit speaking and moving in human hearts did. The Methodist structures, however, were very well suited to connecting people who shared or wanted to share that passion and channeling it into personal growth and vital service and witness among every social sector in England and North America, beginning with the poor. The congregations and ecclesial structures/institutions, meanwhile, were wonderful at providing witness to the deep, long, historic and international grounding of this movement in the worship, teaching, care, and social power of Christians across the centuries, from the time of Jesus forward. The fullness of the movement-- the richly gifted movement of passion in, through, and across people, places, and time-- was best supported when all of these institutions-- Methodist and congregational-- were doing what each did best in service not to themselves, but to the real movement.
So, no polarity.
Instead, synergy, symbiosis, and the mutual recognition of the gifts and graces of other ways of embodying/institutionalizing that sustain the fruitfulness of the real movement-- God's reign in the power of the Spirit, following and learning from Jesus, Lord and Lamb.
I take Roxburgh seriously. No "derivatives with a twist" here. But maybe, just maybe, de-polarizing our vision around these things helps make it a bit less likely that in this Northwest passage into missional Christianity we people called Methodists end up like "those brave men lying dead in a vast, frozen loneliness."
Peace in Christ,
Taylor Burton-Edwards
Just before setting out for emergingumc2, I received in my email inbox the latest edition of the Roxburgh Missional Newsletter (http://www.roxburghmissionalnet.org). It's called "Derivatives with a Twist." I thought about using it in some way at the event, but I couldn't find a good way to make it fit directly.
Go read the whole thing, it's worth it!
Here I want to focus just one one quote, though. The setup is about the wreck of a 19th century ship trying to make it through the Northwest passage and failing to do so because instead of stocking their hull with supplies for what would be a very long (2-3 years) and undoubtedly treacherous journey, they'd brought instead a sizable library (1200 volumes!), a hand organ, fine china and silverware to make a home away from home, only a 12 day supply of coal for their engines, and nowhere near enough food.
So here's the quote:
"The old binary opposites we create around missional change with their inside/outside, institution/organic, hierarchy/flat, and so forth, are like the familiar, precious silver on the bodies of those brave men lying dead in a vast, frozen loneliness."
Within this quote what I really want to focus on is "institution/organic" as a polarity. The reality is that it's not, or at least not as we typically hear it framed in UMC world.
Who among us hasn't heard leaders talk about either making the UMC into a movement again, or somehow claiming that the UMC is a movement? It's not. It a whole collection of institutions. The UMC, as such, never was otherwise.
Here's the deal. Institutions do not become movements. They also don't create movements well. They're just not set up or designed to do either of those things. Maybe there are a few counter examples out there. At the moment, I can't think of any. (Feel free to comment if you do!).
But movements often do create institutions to carry out functions that the "movement folk" don't need or want to focus on directly but that are still essential to continue to accomplish the overall purposes of the movement.
Now there's a myth out there that Roxburgh's refusal to accept the "institutional/organic" polarity addresses directly. The myth is that institutions represent something like the end-state or, in more graphic terms, the dessicated skeleton of a movement. Institutions are bad, in this way of seeing things, while movements are good. Institutions are dead while movements are alive. Institutions are rigid while movements are adaptable. Institutions are rule-bound while movements are free. So, the myth goes, we really need to move away from institutions, and focus all our energies just on movements, solely on the "organic," or even, in perhaps some of our own language, on what is "emergent" or "emerging."
It is only a myth.
Of course, like all myths, it's based on some experience of truth. And we can probably all cite numerous examples of essentially dead institutions that get in the way, stifle growth, and generally harm the life of the movements they were intended to support.
But the real truth is institutions at their very best can and do sustain movements already underway, much like Fringe in Indianapolis helps to sustain performing artists by providing the essential support systems they need to gain some traction. Or, in the software world, like Canonical backs the Ubuntu Linux project, or the Mozilla Foundation backs the browser Firefox, or Sun Microsystems backs the OpenOffice.org initiative-- all of which are themselves products of the open source software community movement. Kind of like how the Earth House Collective seeks to support Lockerbie Central UMC, as well.
And who'd have thought something called "Earth House Collective" would turn out to be more like an institution and a "church" would be more like a movement?
It's actually a case in point.
We gain nothing by living with a false polarity of institution and movement/organic. Investing solely in either end of that polarity and calling it good gets you petrification on the one end and a flash in the pan or a dribbling away of resources on the other. But networked in an accountable partnership, you get life and growth sustainable for a long, long time.
But there's one more layer of this onion to peel away... because often, the way we Methodists frame our history, we want to say the societies/class meetings were organic or movement and the congregations/ecclesial superstructures were institutions.
And that's a myth, too.
They were ALL institutions.
They were institutions designed to nourish different kinds of things, and so the Methodist pieces may have felt more "movementy" than the congregational ones. But they, too, were institutions. They were structured ways of relating to each other designed to accomplish a particular mission.
What was different wasn't whether one was institution and the other a movement. What was different was that the Methodist structures/institutions were designed to support the intentional formation and deployment of disciples of Jesus into his mission in the world while congregations, for the most part, were not, but were instead designed to be the official public format of Christian community in a particular place.
So where was the movement if not "contained" or "created" in some way by the Methodist structures?
It was in the hearts and hands and heads of people. It was in their passion to bear witness to and be part of God's reign happening in the world around them, a passion so compelling it started spreading as a social contagion, because they got off their chairs and out of their buildings and did something about it.
The Methodist structures didn't create any of that-- the Holy Spirit speaking and moving in human hearts did. The Methodist structures, however, were very well suited to connecting people who shared or wanted to share that passion and channeling it into personal growth and vital service and witness among every social sector in England and North America, beginning with the poor. The congregations and ecclesial structures/institutions, meanwhile, were wonderful at providing witness to the deep, long, historic and international grounding of this movement in the worship, teaching, care, and social power of Christians across the centuries, from the time of Jesus forward. The fullness of the movement-- the richly gifted movement of passion in, through, and across people, places, and time-- was best supported when all of these institutions-- Methodist and congregational-- were doing what each did best in service not to themselves, but to the real movement.
So, no polarity.
Instead, synergy, symbiosis, and the mutual recognition of the gifts and graces of other ways of embodying/institutionalizing that sustain the fruitfulness of the real movement-- God's reign in the power of the Spirit, following and learning from Jesus, Lord and Lamb.
I take Roxburgh seriously. No "derivatives with a twist" here. But maybe, just maybe, de-polarizing our vision around these things helps make it a bit less likely that in this Northwest passage into missional Christianity we people called Methodists end up like "those brave men lying dead in a vast, frozen loneliness."
Peace in Christ,
Taylor Burton-Edwards
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
ReThink/ReBe Confirmation
On a blog I read fairly regularly (Dan Dick's outstanding United Methodeviations), one person spoke of the importance of actually “using” youth and younger adults “in church leadership,” as opposed to doing confirmation and them telling them to wait several years before they can serve in such roles.
I wasn't sure what the writer meant, and admitted that. But if it was what I thought he was saying, I had this to say...
If this refers to the usual committee structures of a typical congregation, my guess is that sort of thing is about as appealing to most youth and young adults as memorizing the periodic table alphabetically, numerically, and backwards– in short, tedium tremendum, non fascinans.
Here’s the core problem, as I see it. Congregations by and large aren’t directly about discipleship, and their leadership structures almost never are. Those leadership structures about monitoring the financial life of the congregation, or learning what the pastor’s up to, or making sure the Sunday School literature is getting to the folks who need it, or getting a mission trip to Nicaragua together or any number of other things, all of which are fine things in themselves for Christians to do, and that we should do, but all of which are also at least one step removed from actually living as disciples of Jesus and as his representatives in the world in our daily lives.
Confirmation isn’t supposed to be preparing youth to serve on committees. It’s supposed to be preparing them to live as missionaries in Christ’s name, wherever they go. There are leadership skills needed for that task, but we don’t typically create structures to support and sustain either that task (at least not seriously) or the kind of environment that helps folks learn to lead well in these direct daily missional environments.
(emergingumc2 folk-- you know some who clearly do!)
So… if confirmation leads up to people now being able to serve on committees where they’re not necessarily going to get listened to much, and which, frankly, are a waste of their time, is it any wonder we see such a high “graduation” rate from the worshiping community after confirmation? I mean, really, isn’t there a kind of bait and switch going on here (and a sad and often transparent kind at that)?
I go back to the image of the energy and vitality and commitment Dan Dick described seeing at a youth event in Wisconsin. And then I ask, honestly, “Where in the life of our congregations is there room for THAT level and kind of energy?” That energy isn’t enthusiasm to be part of the committees. It’s enthusiasm to be Christ’s hands and feet in the world.
So… how are we, instead of “using them in leadership,” launching them into discipleship in the world, trusting them to be disciples, and so to fail, learn from failure, and keep plugging away at things OUT THERE for Jesus?
Confirmation shouldn’t be about sealing the deal that they’re now “in here”– it should be about sealing the deal that the Spirit is driving them, as the Spirit drove Jesus, into the wilderness to get going on his mission.
Peace in Christ,
Taylor Burton-Edwards
I wasn't sure what the writer meant, and admitted that. But if it was what I thought he was saying, I had this to say...
If this refers to the usual committee structures of a typical congregation, my guess is that sort of thing is about as appealing to most youth and young adults as memorizing the periodic table alphabetically, numerically, and backwards– in short, tedium tremendum, non fascinans.
Here’s the core problem, as I see it. Congregations by and large aren’t directly about discipleship, and their leadership structures almost never are. Those leadership structures about monitoring the financial life of the congregation, or learning what the pastor’s up to, or making sure the Sunday School literature is getting to the folks who need it, or getting a mission trip to Nicaragua together or any number of other things, all of which are fine things in themselves for Christians to do, and that we should do, but all of which are also at least one step removed from actually living as disciples of Jesus and as his representatives in the world in our daily lives.
Confirmation isn’t supposed to be preparing youth to serve on committees. It’s supposed to be preparing them to live as missionaries in Christ’s name, wherever they go. There are leadership skills needed for that task, but we don’t typically create structures to support and sustain either that task (at least not seriously) or the kind of environment that helps folks learn to lead well in these direct daily missional environments.
(emergingumc2 folk-- you know some who clearly do!)
So… if confirmation leads up to people now being able to serve on committees where they’re not necessarily going to get listened to much, and which, frankly, are a waste of their time, is it any wonder we see such a high “graduation” rate from the worshiping community after confirmation? I mean, really, isn’t there a kind of bait and switch going on here (and a sad and often transparent kind at that)?
I go back to the image of the energy and vitality and commitment Dan Dick described seeing at a youth event in Wisconsin. And then I ask, honestly, “Where in the life of our congregations is there room for THAT level and kind of energy?” That energy isn’t enthusiasm to be part of the committees. It’s enthusiasm to be Christ’s hands and feet in the world.
So… how are we, instead of “using them in leadership,” launching them into discipleship in the world, trusting them to be disciples, and so to fail, learn from failure, and keep plugging away at things OUT THERE for Jesus?
Confirmation shouldn’t be about sealing the deal that they’re now “in here”– it should be about sealing the deal that the Spirit is driving them, as the Spirit drove Jesus, into the wilderness to get going on his mission.
Peace in Christ,
Taylor Burton-Edwards
come out the wilderness
Those of you who were part of emergingumc2 heard and sang -- twice over two days-- a song from the United Methodist Hymnal that may have been unfamiliar before, but that a number of us now testify (on Twitter and Facebook) we can't get out of our heads. In the hymnal it's number 416, "Come out the Wilderness." We changed up the last verse for two others that come from the larger stream of this text's tradition-- "Well, I felt like prayin' when I come out the wilderness" and "Well, I felt like shoutin' when I come out the wilderness." So if you want to start singing it along with what's in our heads, just make those substitutions and you'll be on the same page with us. In a day or two, actually, that full text will be posted on the GBOD worship website, along with all our other worship texts from that event.
But this is the one we can't get out of our heads...
Maybe it was Kate's hauntingly beautiful lead, or Jordan's fantastic guitar. Surely it's partly that.
But I suspect it's more. It's that this song really names where we think we are and maybe need to be-- and in more way than one.
The very grammar of the title keeps it unclear whether we're going out into the wilderness, or abiding in the wilderness for a time, or coming out from the wilderness and inviting folks out there with us for the same transformation we experienced there. We used it in all those ways, and they all seemed to fit.
Alan Roxburgh talks about our current missional environment in North America as an "unthinkable world." The rules we thought we knew don't apply. We have to get more or less "deprogrammed" before we can connect effectively. That's what wilderness does. It strips away pretense. It leaves us honest before God, struggling like Jacob all night long if need be, until God is satisfied enough to rename us "Strugglers" instead of "Grabbers."
Wilderness is reality in its barest, clearest form. And maybe more now in North America than ever.
So... come out to the wilderness. Come out and abide in the wilderness. Come out from the wilderness. Let it move you to tears, prayers, and shouts. And be sure to tell everybody when it happens (if you've been there, you won't be able to stop yourself doing so!). And tell everybody to come out the wilderness with you.
But by all means come out the wilderness... leaning on the Lord!
Peace in Christ,
Taylor Burton-Edwards
But this is the one we can't get out of our heads...
Maybe it was Kate's hauntingly beautiful lead, or Jordan's fantastic guitar. Surely it's partly that.
But I suspect it's more. It's that this song really names where we think we are and maybe need to be-- and in more way than one.
The very grammar of the title keeps it unclear whether we're going out into the wilderness, or abiding in the wilderness for a time, or coming out from the wilderness and inviting folks out there with us for the same transformation we experienced there. We used it in all those ways, and they all seemed to fit.
Alan Roxburgh talks about our current missional environment in North America as an "unthinkable world." The rules we thought we knew don't apply. We have to get more or less "deprogrammed" before we can connect effectively. That's what wilderness does. It strips away pretense. It leaves us honest before God, struggling like Jacob all night long if need be, until God is satisfied enough to rename us "Strugglers" instead of "Grabbers."
Wilderness is reality in its barest, clearest form. And maybe more now in North America than ever.
So... come out to the wilderness. Come out and abide in the wilderness. Come out from the wilderness. Let it move you to tears, prayers, and shouts. And be sure to tell everybody when it happens (if you've been there, you won't be able to stop yourself doing so!). And tell everybody to come out the wilderness with you.
But by all means come out the wilderness... leaning on the Lord!
Peace in Christ,
Taylor Burton-Edwards
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
missional Methodism. where did it go?
Companions,
Click right here, and you'll be able to download the presentation by the same name offered at emergingumc2 this past weekend.
For those who weren't there, no, we didn't do this entire presentation there. That would have been way to much "talking head" stuff to attempt. We actually covered in any depth about the first half or so up to the charts with the words "covenant, communit-y, -ies, context" on intersecting circles. And we didn't actually cover all of that. I left out the "geekier" slides on the specifics of worship, education and mission, for example.
And this presentation doesn't have the list of "accidents" or "emergent realities" or "peculiar providences" that led to the things that made early Methodism work. I talked about those. If anybody would find it useful, I'll post those here separately. I figure we all need to have our own "accidents" as well as learning from the better ones of the past. I think we all tend to learn more from mistakes, failures, and seredipity than from copying off someone else's game plan.
So... come and get it!
And feel free to comment or ask any questions in the comments section below.
But by all means, DO try this at home!
Peace in Christ,
Taylor Burton-Edwards
Click right here, and you'll be able to download the presentation by the same name offered at emergingumc2 this past weekend.
For those who weren't there, no, we didn't do this entire presentation there. That would have been way to much "talking head" stuff to attempt. We actually covered in any depth about the first half or so up to the charts with the words "covenant, communit-y, -ies, context" on intersecting circles. And we didn't actually cover all of that. I left out the "geekier" slides on the specifics of worship, education and mission, for example.
And this presentation doesn't have the list of "accidents" or "emergent realities" or "peculiar providences" that led to the things that made early Methodism work. I talked about those. If anybody would find it useful, I'll post those here separately. I figure we all need to have our own "accidents" as well as learning from the better ones of the past. I think we all tend to learn more from mistakes, failures, and seredipity than from copying off someone else's game plan.
So... come and get it!
And feel free to comment or ask any questions in the comments section below.
But by all means, DO try this at home!
Peace in Christ,
Taylor Burton-Edwards
Monday, November 16, 2009
a running list of emerging missional Methodist communities
Companions,
Following revkev's suggestion, here's a place to begin to compile a list of emerging missional efforts in, among, and/or alongside United Methodist congregations and structures...
Feel free to keep adding to this list! In fact, don't feel free NOT to if you know of or discover something.
And again, these are in no particular order...
1) The group RevKev is part of in Savannah, GA-- I'm not sure we learned a name for this. So Kevin, can you fill in the details on it?
2) the gathering-- a United Methodist congregation in Saint Louis, MO that has been "re-built" after a merger of several inner city congregations as a more or less emerging missional congregation with a strong sense of mission in its local place.
3) Th3 Waters-- the organic groups ministry connected with Florence United Methodist Church, Florence, Kentucky.
4) Lockerbie Central UMC/Earth House-- the place and the people with whom we gathered over the emergingumc2 weekend
5) Vision Community Church-- a relatively new, missional congregation/community in Warwick, NY, the first "church start" in that conference in over 40 years.
6) Hot Metal Bridge Faith Community-- a UMC/PCUSA joint "church plant" that lives in mission with the people of the South Side of Pittsburgh, PA. They don't call themselves "emerging" or "emergent," but the vision is clearly missional and accountable. Jim Walker's book, Dirty Word, tells the story of this community and its ministry.
7) A good number of Wesley Foundations have gone this direction. Two I know in particular (and I know their staff leaders personally) are at Troy University (Troy, Alabama) and Drake University (Des Moines, Iowa).
8) Carl Thomas Gladstone and others continue to build the Emerge Network of missional ministries in the greater Detroit area.
That's good for starters... now what else do you know about or are part of or wish to add? Just put them all in the comments, and after a few weeks we'll issue a bigger list on the blog proper.
Peace,
Taylor
Following revkev's suggestion, here's a place to begin to compile a list of emerging missional efforts in, among, and/or alongside United Methodist congregations and structures...
Feel free to keep adding to this list! In fact, don't feel free NOT to if you know of or discover something.
And again, these are in no particular order...
1) The group RevKev is part of in Savannah, GA-- I'm not sure we learned a name for this. So Kevin, can you fill in the details on it?
2) the gathering-- a United Methodist congregation in Saint Louis, MO that has been "re-built" after a merger of several inner city congregations as a more or less emerging missional congregation with a strong sense of mission in its local place.
3) Th3 Waters-- the organic groups ministry connected with Florence United Methodist Church, Florence, Kentucky.
4) Lockerbie Central UMC/Earth House-- the place and the people with whom we gathered over the emergingumc2 weekend
5) Vision Community Church-- a relatively new, missional congregation/community in Warwick, NY, the first "church start" in that conference in over 40 years.
6) Hot Metal Bridge Faith Community-- a UMC/PCUSA joint "church plant" that lives in mission with the people of the South Side of Pittsburgh, PA. They don't call themselves "emerging" or "emergent," but the vision is clearly missional and accountable. Jim Walker's book, Dirty Word, tells the story of this community and its ministry.
7) A good number of Wesley Foundations have gone this direction. Two I know in particular (and I know their staff leaders personally) are at Troy University (Troy, Alabama) and Drake University (Des Moines, Iowa).
8) Carl Thomas Gladstone and others continue to build the Emerge Network of missional ministries in the greater Detroit area.
That's good for starters... now what else do you know about or are part of or wish to add? Just put them all in the comments, and after a few weeks we'll issue a bigger list on the blog proper.
Peace,
Taylor
a running list of missional groups...
Companions,
I'll be putting several posts here in the coming day or so that follow up on our work and reflections at the emergingumc2 gathering this past weekend.
The first is what I hope will become an annotated "running" list of potential missional groups, those gatherings of sisters and/or brothers who have each other's back and are committed to the way of Jesus-- and I'm turning comments moderation off for a bit to allow this to become as free-flowing as it can.
With each one here, I'm going to provide a bit of annotation, something to describe, briefly, how each of these COULD function as a Methodist missional group even if it currently doesn't fulfill that potential. I'll also note in each case "where" each of these groups is located relative to existing congregations.
So... here goes... and in no particular priority of order
1) "Emmaus" 4th Day groups-- Everyone who does a "Walk to Emmaus" (or Cursillo or similar experience) is strongly encouraged to continue to build on the spiritual and community connections they experienced on the "walk" (or in the "short course") by becoming actively involved in a "4th Day" group. These are designed to be accountable next-step groups that help people discern and then take concrete next steps in discipleship to Jesus. They aren't designed to be in "competition with" the congregation, nor are they designed to be ONLY for those who have experienced the "walk" or the "short course. But as with many of these "spiritually charged" groups (and, as we saw, with early Methodism) there can be a real tendency to get disillusioned with the congregation (and I'd argue that's actually healthy!) and start "dissing" it, backing away from it, and encouraging others to do likewise (and that's NOT healthy!). With support from a "Methodist-friendly" pastor and congregation, they could accomplish their "missional group" calling more effectively and in far greater synergy with local congregations than they may otherwise do.
You or some members of your congregation may be already part of such a group-- so a connection to your congregation may already exist. But if not, remember the example of the Wesleys and early Methodists in England. Build a positive relationship with the leaders of such groups so you can be in a position to be that "bridge" between those with "bright eyes" and such groups where you are. Don't worry if they're not led by United Methodists or if they'd not Emmaus per se (which is why I mentioned Cursillo above-- and there are other similar programs out there). It's the mission that needs to be accomplished, not the label on the group!
2) Wesley Foundations and other UM campus ministry groups-- A good number of these groups are, already, intentionally organized to live accountably and missionally, often using some form of Covenant Discipleship as their basic model. That reality is part of what gets them misunderstood (and sadly, defunded!) since they don't live "attractionally"-- i.e., they don't try to get lots of people into their "program," but rather work at being a missional community that forms and sends those who seek to live and work as disciples of Jesus, no matter their career path. But it's also why these organizations continue to be a huge engine for leadership in the church at all levels... not just United Methodist or clergy, but also those who find they can lead better in other ways and connected to other systems, including "secular" ones!
This kind of asset may be available for some of you, but not others. Or it may be available on some campuses, but not others. Here's an opportunity, then, to begin to explore with students on campuses that don't have this kind of missional group the possibilities for creating one.
3) Covenant Discipleship Groups-- This is a form of intentional covenant community between 5-7 people who meet regularly, develop a "rule of life" based on works of piety (corporate and personal) and works of mercy (individual and social) and help each other live it. An observation from my colleague, Steve Manskar, who is primarily responsible for promoting Wesleyan accountable discipleship through GBOD-- this does NOT work well as a "program" ministry of the congregation. There, it tends to get lost as "one option among many" rather than as a critical element in forming and sending people in the way of Jesus. It's not that congregations can't or shouldn't create these-- they can and should-- it's that this works better if and where it's seen more as part of the life of the people in it than the property of the congregation. An additional observation from me-- I think these would work much better if there were also more concrete "societies"-- gatherings of groups of these folks-- both to encourage folks in them and to create and sustain conversations that generate tactics (not strategy!) for deploying more of them.
Put another way, what CD groups often end up being is a kind of way of "hiding" committed people "deep inside" the congregation in some ways. Put biologically, congregations often tend to create these groups to generate more mitochondria for the congregation itself. (This is why the Borg are evil!). What they were designed to do and what they need to do is to be a venue of community that puts and keeps people on the front lines of mission in the world-- which sometimes includes the life of the congregation, but doesn't see the congregation as its primary destination.
4) United Methodist Women Circles-- This may seem to some to be an odd group to include, but structurally and missionally they really CAN fit beautifully. These are generally small enough gatherings (as circles rather than as the whole local unit) that there is very real potential (and indeed, there has been extraordinary fruit over time!) for these to be missional "class meetings" for women. Their mission is all about mission, right? And the Women's Division has done a reasonably good job over the years providing publications and other resources that keep that vision of mission ultimately focused more on the priorities of God's reign than just the institutional interests of the denomination. (You might think of the Women's Division as the General Conference, the Annual Conference and District meetings as the Conference, and the local unit as the Society-- structurally, that's exactly what they were and still are!). Plus, they retain enough structural independence from the UMC overall that they don't HAVE to get sucked into the "same-old, same-old" of the "publicly acceptable.
4) United Methodist Men-- UMM is beginning now to roll out the Wesleyan Building Brothers Process. You won't see this described on the page, or even in the brochure it links to, but one of the "four pieces" of the process is an ongoing meeting of small groups of men-- pretty much a Wesleyan class meeting. As these things launch around the connection, they really can be powerful entities for those who connect with them. At least, it seems that way to me looking at it from having talked with the guy who's getting all this going at UMM (Larry Malone). This won't be a venue for all men (or males!) you might encounter, but it could be really helpful for some.
5) Order of Saint Luke Local Chapters-- The Order of Saint Luke is an ecumenical and dispersed religious order, complete with a Rule of Life and Service, with deep roots and ongoing affiliation with the United Methodist Church (and in fact, specifically with my office at GBOD!). Where these chapters focus more on liturgical preferences, they are likely not all that helpful for what we've been talking about. But where they focus on their Rule of Life and Service (which includes but is by no means limited to worship preferences) they have great potential, precisely in part because of their depth of awareness and practice of early Christian and monastic practices of prayer and worship, for deep formation for folks in both worship and mission (or to use Wesley's terminology, works of piety and works of mercy) from an incarnational/sacramental center.
One value shared by all of these (and others I hope some of you will begin to name and describe where you are) is that they don't see the congregation as the DESTINATION of Christian discipleship, but rather as something more like we saw with Indy Fringe... an institution that can and does provide some support systems and linkages that growing artists (which is a way to think about discipleship, too, right?) need to help their art reach, affect, and help them link to other artists and people in the larger community. Early Methodists were not being trained in how to run congregations. They were being trained in how to encounter Jesus in others at work in the world and how, in those encounters, to keep acting as representatives of God's reign. That's a different skill-set than running a public institution. Yet some of what we do as disciples benefits greatly by having strong connections with effective public institutions, including congregations, who have leaders who have those skills, too.
So this list begins... keep adding to it, folks!
Peace in Christ,
Taylor
I'll be putting several posts here in the coming day or so that follow up on our work and reflections at the emergingumc2 gathering this past weekend.
The first is what I hope will become an annotated "running" list of potential missional groups, those gatherings of sisters and/or brothers who have each other's back and are committed to the way of Jesus-- and I'm turning comments moderation off for a bit to allow this to become as free-flowing as it can.
With each one here, I'm going to provide a bit of annotation, something to describe, briefly, how each of these COULD function as a Methodist missional group even if it currently doesn't fulfill that potential. I'll also note in each case "where" each of these groups is located relative to existing congregations.
So... here goes... and in no particular priority of order
1) "Emmaus" 4th Day groups-- Everyone who does a "Walk to Emmaus" (or Cursillo or similar experience) is strongly encouraged to continue to build on the spiritual and community connections they experienced on the "walk" (or in the "short course") by becoming actively involved in a "4th Day" group. These are designed to be accountable next-step groups that help people discern and then take concrete next steps in discipleship to Jesus. They aren't designed to be in "competition with" the congregation, nor are they designed to be ONLY for those who have experienced the "walk" or the "short course. But as with many of these "spiritually charged" groups (and, as we saw, with early Methodism) there can be a real tendency to get disillusioned with the congregation (and I'd argue that's actually healthy!) and start "dissing" it, backing away from it, and encouraging others to do likewise (and that's NOT healthy!). With support from a "Methodist-friendly" pastor and congregation, they could accomplish their "missional group" calling more effectively and in far greater synergy with local congregations than they may otherwise do.
You or some members of your congregation may be already part of such a group-- so a connection to your congregation may already exist. But if not, remember the example of the Wesleys and early Methodists in England. Build a positive relationship with the leaders of such groups so you can be in a position to be that "bridge" between those with "bright eyes" and such groups where you are. Don't worry if they're not led by United Methodists or if they'd not Emmaus per se (which is why I mentioned Cursillo above-- and there are other similar programs out there). It's the mission that needs to be accomplished, not the label on the group!
2) Wesley Foundations and other UM campus ministry groups-- A good number of these groups are, already, intentionally organized to live accountably and missionally, often using some form of Covenant Discipleship as their basic model. That reality is part of what gets them misunderstood (and sadly, defunded!) since they don't live "attractionally"-- i.e., they don't try to get lots of people into their "program," but rather work at being a missional community that forms and sends those who seek to live and work as disciples of Jesus, no matter their career path. But it's also why these organizations continue to be a huge engine for leadership in the church at all levels... not just United Methodist or clergy, but also those who find they can lead better in other ways and connected to other systems, including "secular" ones!
This kind of asset may be available for some of you, but not others. Or it may be available on some campuses, but not others. Here's an opportunity, then, to begin to explore with students on campuses that don't have this kind of missional group the possibilities for creating one.
3) Covenant Discipleship Groups-- This is a form of intentional covenant community between 5-7 people who meet regularly, develop a "rule of life" based on works of piety (corporate and personal) and works of mercy (individual and social) and help each other live it. An observation from my colleague, Steve Manskar, who is primarily responsible for promoting Wesleyan accountable discipleship through GBOD-- this does NOT work well as a "program" ministry of the congregation. There, it tends to get lost as "one option among many" rather than as a critical element in forming and sending people in the way of Jesus. It's not that congregations can't or shouldn't create these-- they can and should-- it's that this works better if and where it's seen more as part of the life of the people in it than the property of the congregation. An additional observation from me-- I think these would work much better if there were also more concrete "societies"-- gatherings of groups of these folks-- both to encourage folks in them and to create and sustain conversations that generate tactics (not strategy!) for deploying more of them.
Put another way, what CD groups often end up being is a kind of way of "hiding" committed people "deep inside" the congregation in some ways. Put biologically, congregations often tend to create these groups to generate more mitochondria for the congregation itself. (This is why the Borg are evil!). What they were designed to do and what they need to do is to be a venue of community that puts and keeps people on the front lines of mission in the world-- which sometimes includes the life of the congregation, but doesn't see the congregation as its primary destination.
4) United Methodist Women Circles-- This may seem to some to be an odd group to include, but structurally and missionally they really CAN fit beautifully. These are generally small enough gatherings (as circles rather than as the whole local unit) that there is very real potential (and indeed, there has been extraordinary fruit over time!) for these to be missional "class meetings" for women. Their mission is all about mission, right? And the Women's Division has done a reasonably good job over the years providing publications and other resources that keep that vision of mission ultimately focused more on the priorities of God's reign than just the institutional interests of the denomination. (You might think of the Women's Division as the General Conference, the Annual Conference and District meetings as the Conference, and the local unit as the Society-- structurally, that's exactly what they were and still are!). Plus, they retain enough structural independence from the UMC overall that they don't HAVE to get sucked into the "same-old, same-old" of the "publicly acceptable.
4) United Methodist Men-- UMM is beginning now to roll out the Wesleyan Building Brothers Process. You won't see this described on the page, or even in the brochure it links to, but one of the "four pieces" of the process is an ongoing meeting of small groups of men-- pretty much a Wesleyan class meeting. As these things launch around the connection, they really can be powerful entities for those who connect with them. At least, it seems that way to me looking at it from having talked with the guy who's getting all this going at UMM (Larry Malone). This won't be a venue for all men (or males!) you might encounter, but it could be really helpful for some.
5) Order of Saint Luke Local Chapters-- The Order of Saint Luke is an ecumenical and dispersed religious order, complete with a Rule of Life and Service, with deep roots and ongoing affiliation with the United Methodist Church (and in fact, specifically with my office at GBOD!). Where these chapters focus more on liturgical preferences, they are likely not all that helpful for what we've been talking about. But where they focus on their Rule of Life and Service (which includes but is by no means limited to worship preferences) they have great potential, precisely in part because of their depth of awareness and practice of early Christian and monastic practices of prayer and worship, for deep formation for folks in both worship and mission (or to use Wesley's terminology, works of piety and works of mercy) from an incarnational/sacramental center.
One value shared by all of these (and others I hope some of you will begin to name and describe where you are) is that they don't see the congregation as the DESTINATION of Christian discipleship, but rather as something more like we saw with Indy Fringe... an institution that can and does provide some support systems and linkages that growing artists (which is a way to think about discipleship, too, right?) need to help their art reach, affect, and help them link to other artists and people in the larger community. Early Methodists were not being trained in how to run congregations. They were being trained in how to encounter Jesus in others at work in the world and how, in those encounters, to keep acting as representatives of God's reign. That's a different skill-set than running a public institution. Yet some of what we do as disciples benefits greatly by having strong connections with effective public institutions, including congregations, who have leaders who have those skills, too.
So this list begins... keep adding to it, folks!
Peace in Christ,
Taylor
Saturday, November 14, 2009
thanks for all of the fantastic ideas!
Thanks so much everyone for all of the ideas, conversations, and renewal that happened at the emergingumc2 event!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)