A Living Alternative

Some time ago I got a call from one of my favourite bloggers (and writers in general), Darryl Dash, asking me some questions on blogging.  It was for an article in Faith Today on why Christians need to pay attention to the blogging phenomenon.  Today I received my copy of the July/August edition of the magazine (it's 25th anniversary edition, no less) with the article inside.

In "Blogging 101: What is this thing people do on the internet and why should I care?", Darryl offers an excellent introduction to blogging and how it is being used by various Canadian Christians.  In addition to myself, he also shared about Jordon Cooper (a blogger & friend who sets the bar for Canadian Christian blogging), Denyse O'Leary (Roman Catholic journalist), John Stackhouse Jr (Regent prof) and Deborah Gyapong (journalist).  Darryl humbly didn't mention his own blog, though it is well worth the attention (especially this recent post - Church of the Broken)(ht:Grace).

It was a privilege to be included in the piece, especially in such an important edition.  If you can get your hands on it, it is worth it.  Here's a snippet of what I contributed:

"Blogging is a tool.  It's a medium that be used for just about anything.  It's neither inherently good or bad.  It's what we bring to it.  My hope is that blogging can be a seminal palce for developing a new approach to creating community and conversation, levelling the playing field, creating safe places for vulnerability."

Blogging Faith Today Canada Christianity

The more I study about St. Francis, the more stunned I am how widely embraced and influential he is.  Not only did he revolutionize his own era in a very short time, the ripples of his life and example are still deeply felt today, across cultural, religious and traditional lines.  This kind of influence is so rarely seen, historical or today.  What makes St. Francis so exceptional?

Francis embodies a seemingly contradictory pair of dynamics: he is at once truly a man of his era, while remaining an example of Christlikeness that is timeless.  In order to be the missional people of God to our world, we must recognize the very specific context we live- culturally, socially, etc.- otherwise we fall into the arrogant assumption that we are the standard by which all others are measured.

"The particulars of time and place always matter; more to the point, faith in God means that God continues to disclose Himself in the particulars of our time, our life, our circumstances." ("Reluctant Saint: The Life of St. Francis of Assisi", by Donald Spoto)

Francis changed his world precisely because he incarnated the Gospel into the life and imagination of his contemporaries.  He expressed his love for God through the poetry and song of the troubadors, his devotion to the Kingdom through the imagery of the tales and legends of Arthur and his knights.  He was a man of God and a man of his age.

And yet, he also represents the countercultural, timeless power of the Gospel in his radical obedience to Christ and His teachings.  Even centuries later, he exposes our own compromises with stunning clarity.  He calls for obedience without compromise, yet does not judge or condemn.  He is as much for us today as he was for his own century.

"Francis of Assisi may have lived eight hundred years ago, but it is he who is young, and we who are old- old in our consumerist lifestyle, in our discrimination against other cultures, and in the way we violate nature." ("Francis of Assisi" by Leonardo Boff)

This is the tension we must learn to navigate ourselves.  We must seek to embody and proclaim the Gospel in ways that are true to the world around us- not in a shallow mimicry that condescends to our neighbours, but a true incarnation that comes from our genuine engagement with our culture.  And yet, we must also follow the call and example of Christ over and against the culture.  This is not an easy line walk, but one we must follow.

St. Francis has a lot to teach us on how to do this.

Lately I have been having a significant shift in my outlook.  In short, I am learning to let some dream go.  Part of personality is to be visionary, to see great potential in things that others might miss.  These ideas come to me unbidden.  They excite and energize me with the possibilities.  They keep me awake at night.  However, they are also most often dreams beyond our means to realize.

There is a freedom that comes with this.  I am able to take greater joy in the simple.  It is, in part, why our little community is taking the name "the little flowers", because that is enough.  It is enough to be a small community of Christians trying to love God and our neighbours and each other as best we can.  It is enough to have good, but small programs that help us in this process.  It is enough until God chooses to give us more, if at all.

However, as the dreams come from the very center of my personality, they feel like a part of me.  And so, in the letting go, there is something of a death, a loss, and with it, a mourning.  That is where I am these days.  Learning to mourn and release the visions and dreams that, for now, are beyond our reach.  Learning to embrace the present and possible with joy and passion.  Reorienting my life towards different ends, freed of the assumption that "it will happen".  It is hard and it makes me a little sad.

Before you say anything, I know that God can and does provide.  Trust me when I tell you that I know very well what it is like to rely on goods provision for even the most meager needs.  This is not about me needing more faith in God.  Some will say that, by letting go, God will give it back to me.  Perhaps, but I do not let go for that reason, for it only makes the release that much more difficult.

And so I am sad.  Not depressed.  Not despairing.  Just sad.  And hopeful.

After several days of working on my contribution to the "What Is Missional?" Synchroblog, I was fairly pleased with the result.  However, after reading so many of the other posts, I bow out for some truly great contributions.  With 50 contributors, I cannot mention all that are note worthy, but I do want to bring your attention to one in particular:


In this amazing post, Erika reminds us that as we seek to be incarnational in our missional identity, we must accept that "the consequence of the incarnation is the crucifixion".  This is a critical reminder that might well help curb the casual popularity of the term.  This is a must read post.  I look forward to the follow up post that explores the promise of resurrection this understanding extends.

Well done, Erika.  And thank you!

When I decided to participate in this "What Is Missional?" Syncroblog, I was initially nervous.  After all, I am not a theologian or a particularly accomplished "practitioner".  However, I am passionately committed to follow Christ, along with my community, to become the peculiar people He has called us to be.  After all, the stakes are high.  I am not exploring this out of curiosity or intellectual interest, but because I see in my inner city neighbourhood (and moreso in my own life) the desperate need for saving transformation.  And so I will try to wrestle it our here.

Perhaps one of the biggest reasons that the term "missional" get so over-used, misused and abused is that it cannot be understood apart from the "mission" that is at its root (both etymologically and conceptually).  At the heart of God's mission is the Gospel.  While "What is the Gospel?" could be a Syncroblog in and of itself, I have always started with this very basic premise:

"The Gospel is the glory of the Triune God made manifest in His work to reconcile every person to union with Himself, communion with others, to fullness of life, and to harmony with Creation, in the context of community for the good of all."

(Before I move on, some have expressed concern that I make no mention of Jesus and His work on the cross, so let me make it clear.  I firmly hold to the belief that our salvation comes through the redemptive and atoning work of Christ's death and bodily resurrection.  The above definition is not meant to be comprehensive, but rather offer a framework for the wider understanding of the Gospel, which has been God's intention from the beginning.  Jesus, as I will show later, is central to what it means to be missional.)

God, in His infinite and uncomprehensible wisdom, choose to make manifest His work through us, His imperfect people (even if only in part).  Therefore, our whole lives must be shaped, guided and redefined by the purposes of God.  Here, for me, is the first lesson about being missional: Missional is about implication, not application.  By this I mean that the mission of God cannot be something we add or fit into our lives.  Nor is it even something for which we simply sacrifice to make room for.  Rather, it is about examining the very real implications of what it would mean on every level of life if we were defined my this divine agenda.

It is not surprising, then, that as interest and engagement with the concept of missional develops, so to does the conversation and exploration of what the church looks like.  This was lesson number two for me: Missional cannot be understand apart from ecclesiology (or vice versa).  The mission of God speaks to the very nature, identity and vocation of the Church.  While it should go without saying that, when I say "Church" I am not merely referring to the building or the Sunday gathering, it sadly does not.  The challenge is that, even when we acknowledge this fact with our lips, our lives and language often fall back to this false assumption.

The most important lesson for me on being missional, on which I will spend more time developing, is this: Missional is incarnational.  This is to say that, as a people of God, we relate and engage the world after the way that God relates and engages the world.  This is expressed primarily, though not exclusively, in the person of Jesus.  Let me offer three core points in this:

Community: I say "not exclusively" in Jesus, because I believe that when Scripture teaches that we are created in God's image, that is primarily in reference to God's Trinitarian nature.  Just as God is Three-Persons in perfect Oneness, so to are we called to be in genuine community, seeking to be many united as one.  We are not able to become gods in our unity, but rather, through the work of Jesus on the cross, we die to self and are resurrected into His Body, bound together in the Spirit.  I believe our being His Body to be more than an analogy, but a defining description of our nature as the Church.

Like the Trinity, our commitment to unity and community does not require the irradication of the individual.  While we must resist the disintegrative force of individualism, true community always celebrates and nurtures healthy individuality.  In fact, it is only within the Chirst-community that individual identity can truly be realized.  This is perhaps the single greatest tension we face- the battle between rampant individualism and soulless uniformity.  However, I genuinely believe that in the Western world, we are in more danger from the former.  I would go so far as to say that a person cannot be truly missional apart from community, because that very community is essential to mission and the Godhead that gives it form.

Contextualization: Jesus, fully God, entered into our world as fully man, the ultimate contextualization.  He divested Himself of many things that were His right in order to make a way for God's mission of love and redemption to happen.  In the same way, we must enter into the world around us in such a way that allows people to encounter Christ in ways that they understand.  It means that we must give up many things that we (may) have every right to, but that get in the way of representing Christ's incarnational presence in our neighbourhoods, cultures and world.

In 1 Corinthians 9, we are to "become all things to all men so that by all possible means" other will be saved.  So we do not simply contextualize, we contextualize as Christ in the culture (which we will discuss more in the next point).  It is important to note that, while we seek to "become all things to all men", we cannot be all things at the same time.  This is why singular expressions and models copied elsewhere can undermine the effectiveness of being truly missional.

Countercultural:  As I suggested in the previous point, we are be an incarnational expression of Christ in culture, but simply an adaptation (or compromise) with the culture in general.  Going back to my reference to "implication not application", we must recognize that the incarnational presence we are called to represent is not compatible with all aspects of our the world around us.  Be it individualism or consumerism (two of the most serious threats to the Church today), we cannot and must not attempt to accomodate aspects of culture that would undermine the mission of God, but rather live boldly apart and even against them.  We are called to be a peculiar people in that our radical obedience to Christ will set us apart, not simply through rejection and isolation, but by engaging the world as living alternatives.

We must be careful here too, for we can call all sorts of isolationism "countercultural".  Further, we can even begin to gain an identity around those things which we reject (as many Christians seem to be defined by their anti-gay or anti-abortion stances, or more subtley and closer to home, by being anti-program or anti-institution).  As a Canadian, I can tell you that there is little stability in an identity defined by what we are not.  Again, we are to be countercultural, not in what we oppose, but through the living alternative we represent before a watching world.

This, of course, only brushes the surface of what I believe missional to be (and much of it could do with some serious qualification, but that's what the comment section is for, right?).  However, the beauty of missional is that it is a communal reality.  Check out the others who are blogging the topic:

Alan Hirsch  Alan Knox  Andrew Jones  Barb Peters  Bill Kinnon  Brad Brisco  Brad Grinnen  Brad Sargent  Brother Maynard  Bryan Riley  Chad Brooks  Chris Wignall  Cobus Van Wyngaard  Dave DeVries  David Best  David Fitch  David Wierzbicki  DoSi  Doug Jones  Duncan McFadzean  Erika Haub  Grace   Jeff McQuilkin  John Smulo  Jonathan Brink  JR Rozko  Kathy Escobar  Len Hjalmarson  Makeesha Fisher  Malcolm Lanham  Mark Berry  Mark Petersen  Mark Priddy  Michael Crane  Michael Stewart  Nick Loyd  Patrick Oden  Peggy Brown  Phil Wyman  Richard Pool  Rick Meigs  Rob Robinson  Ron Cole  Scott Marshall  Sonja Andrews  Stephen Shields  Steve Hayes  Tim Thompson  Thom Turner

Missional Synchroblog What Is Missional? Missional Community Gospel Jesus

When I consider St. Francis, I am continually amazed at the incredible impact he has had (and still has) on the lives of people, both Christian and otherwise.  Though we can point to his excesses (like his refusal to have any of his followers even touch money or extreme self-impoverishment after the supposed example of Jesus), we must stop to consider why he is widely embraced and is the subject of more books and biographies than any other saint in history (a point made more interesting we recognize that he is also one of the least educated of saints).

St. Francis of Assisi distinguished himself most by his unwavering and unnuanced adherence to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  For him, this was summed up best in the Sermon on the Mount, which he followed as though it were written specifically for him to follow as literally as possible.  Again, in the midst of this radical obedience, it is very easy to see his extremes and even mistakes.  However, what cannot be denied is the power and impact that his obedience had on his time and all times since.

It begs the question, then, why do we not abandon ourselves to this kind of reckless faithfulness to the Gospel?  Surely the extremes and mistakes we will most certainly make (no greater than the ones we already make) are a small price to pay in our lives can so powerfully incarnate the love and presence of Christ before a waiting and watching world.  What if we, as communities and individuals, seriously endeavoured to follow the Sermon on the Mount literally, even for only a season?

Of course, my own mind immediate starts asking the question: But what does the Sermon of the Mount actually call us to?  What does it mean?  Are there not many interpretations?  Of course there is legitimacy to some of these question, but St. Francis had little patience for interpretations.  As one his biographers, Leonardo Boff, puts it:

"He knew very well that for the most part the interpretations are but a castration of the strength of the Gospel, and the Gospel was, simply, for him, his formula vitae."

I am deeply challenged by St. Francis example.  To that end I have been examining my own life against the measure of the Gospel and the Sermon on the Mount, and I am shamed by my inadequacy.  However, St. Francis also embodies something unlike so many of the leaders of the monastic movements, his devotion was matched only by his joy and grace.  And so my shame is transformed into hope, excitement and even anticipation.

I do not make this journey lightly, for as I consider the implication of this calling, I know that will inevitably (even essentially) be disruptive.  The people in my life- family, friends and neighbours- cannot avoid being impacted by the direction I am moving in.  I am grateful, however, that I am not making this journey alone.  I am part of a community that longs for this kind of life together, people who inspire me daily.  People like my co-workers.  Most of all, people like my wife.

This is the foundation on which I long to build our "church plant" (an inadequate designation, but it will suffice).  I have been in ministry long enough, lived in community long enough and have called the inner city my home long enough not to be blinded by idealism.  Rather, like St. Francis, I want to carry my idealism into the midst of the very real brokenness of our lives and our world, and with joy, allow Christ to transform us together.



St. Francis Franciscan Missional Sermon On The Mount Jesus

On Monday I will be taking part in the "What is Missional?" Synchroblog, along with 50(+) others.  I have already written it, though I am letting it brew for a few days, editting as I see fit.  I am eager to see where this joint effort goes, as I think it is critical that the term and concept(s) not be lost to popular trends and catch-phrases.

As I was writing my post, I realized that "missional" is, at its simplest, an adjective, meaning it is a descriptive word, a word that describes a noun. While this distinction does shift the meaning of "mission", that root still requires definition.  Part of the reason that the word "missional" gets misused is that the underlying definition of what the mission is.  Of course, many people simply use it too casually and thus misrepresent it, but there are others who use it as an adjective for their different understanding of mission.

I strongly affirm and advocate for our effort to present a better, truer and more Biblical paradigm of missionality.  However, just as other terms and concepts within Christianity are used differently than we might (even if they are used improperly), we must be careful to become to proprietary about the term "missional".  Without intending to we can communicate that we have the corner of God's mission, thus alienating and even dismissing our other sisters and brothers in Christ.

I say this, not because I feel that the Syncroblog is wrong or representing the problem I just stated.  Obviously, as a participant, I believe it is well worth the time and energy.  Rather, I think we must be intentional the approach this conversation- as with any conversation, be it theological or otherwise- with humility, grace and openness.  Not the patronizing, lip-service acknowledgment of others, but a genuine commitment to respect and attend to others who see things differently.

At any rate, I am excited about Monday's posting for everyone.  See you then!

Missional Synchroblog What Is Missional?

Come, Holy Spirit,
bending or not bending the grasses,
appearing or not above our heads in a tongue of flame,
at hay harvest or when they plough in the orchards,
or when snow covers crippled firs in the Sierra Nevada.

I am only a human being: I need visible signs.
I tire easily, building the stairway of abstraction.
Many a time I asked, you know it well,
that the statue in church lift its hand, only once, just once, for me.

But I understand that signs must be human,
therefore, call one person, anywhere on earth,
not me-after all I have some decency-
and allow me, when I look at that person,
to marvel at you.

-Czeslaw Milosz

I am really wrestling with the challenge of fund raising. While I live with the challenge of personal missions support, lately it has been raising funds for the ministry that I have struggled with. As a YWAM ministry we have resisted soliciting funds since we started here 6 years ago (with a few small exceptions). We have relied on our own investment (i.e. all staff help the ministry stay afloat from our own missions support) and our programs (the primary source of funding).

Several people have suggested to me, of late, that I should pursue the natural "next step" in pursuing ministry support. In order to further develop our outreach, we should use the typical techniques for fund raising- banquets, mail outs, etc. Of course, this requires a name, a face to attach to the cause, which means that Kim & I would have to fill that role.

I know some amazing ministries here in Winnipeg that use this approach very successfully. However, they are agencies that meet some serious (often emergency) needs on a larger scale. Their leaders are hired in large part for their ability to represent. And I am really glad they can do it, as it needs to get done, and the ones I am thinking of do it with character and a solid ethic.

Here's the thing: As we move forward in our shared vocation, coming into a more authentic identity as a missional community, I just cannot see this fitting. Aside from the fact that I am not comfortable with being the "face" of our ministry in this capacity, to create and sustain this kind of fund raising approach will demand changes that work against the direction we have made so far. The means does impact the message, and in this context, I don't think it would be positive.

Combine this with decreasing personal missionary support (most of our staff make the equivelant of about $3 an hour), this challenge raises some interesting questions, like: if we aren't a traditional parachurch, why try to be? Why not just leave it for something different altogether? Fair questions. However, we all feel deeply convinced that we are supposed to remain missionaries with YWAM. So, then, where do we go from here?

I am not entirely sure. Unless someone comes along with some experience, insight, wisdom (or cash) that we lack, I guess the choice for now is to keep going as is. It can be terrifying not knowing where the means will come from to pay the bills, let alone respond to the needs that seem to be growing as our community opens it's embrace. However, there is something beautiful and powerful about having to embrace this kind of trust in God.

I really need your input here:

Do you think we should pursue the more traditional "parachurch" fund raising methods?

If not, are there alternatives you can suggest?