Aj Schwanz

It might just be too good to be true.

Allelon just announced courses in their summer leadership institute:

Over those years itís become clear that if weíre to cultivate a missional church we have to address the question of leadership. And if we are to see unfold among us the kinds of local missional communities we talk and write about then it is going to require a multi-generational movement of men and women committed to this journey.

How refreshing it is to hear that I’m not the only one aching for an intergenerational effort in doing ministry!

At Allelon, we believe no single group, system or organization has within itself the resources or imagination to address the challenges of forming mission-shaped churches and their leaders. Unless we come together, without competition and across our boundaries, to focus on future generations rather than the immediate moment, we wonít achieve or sustain the innovations and transformations required.

What a clarifying and well-balanced approach to learning it sounds like: something I needed to hear about, particularly now. Today has been a discouraging day for me thinking about what God’s got coming up for ministry and how we get in his way.

Andrew Jones wrote a wonderful yet challenging letter to folks in the Western emerging church conversation (I think he was getting his inner-Quaker on):

THESE THINGS WE ARE BEING CRITICIZED FOR ALREADY BY THE WORLD. AND RIGHTLY SO - ALL WHO DESIRE TO LIVE GODLY IN CHRIST JESUS WILL BE PERSECUTED. DOES THE WORLD THEN SEE US MORE CLEARLY THAN THE CHURCH CRITICS? IF WE ARE MORE VISIBLE TO THE WORLD DUE TO OUR REDEMPTIVE RELATIONSHIPS, THEN I UNDERSTAND THE CONFUSION. PERHAPS WE NEED TO GET OUT MORE INTO MAINSTREAM CHRISTIAN CONFERENCES AND GATHERINGS, THE LAND OF DOCKERS AND WEAK COFFEE, AND START THE PROCESS OF INTRODUCING OURSELVES AND OUR MISSION.

Alan Creech voiced frustration regarding folks who talk about the emerging movement:

Really - if you want to know - I think most of the time people outside “it” talk about “it” they don’t know what the hell they’re talking about. Many of those inside don’t really know either. They/we try to define it and write books about it and have conferences to introduce people to it. Lions and Tigers and Bears, oh my!

Some folks enjoyed the Emergent Theological Conversation; some were disappointed/discouraged; some were encouraged to engage in a more “right direction” afterwards.

Some recognized that folks know what “emerging is against” - but what are they for?

why is it that people seek to find a universal agreement in the emerging? why is it that people can not see what we are for? people say, “we know what you are against, but what are you for?” that got me thinking, and that can be a very dangerous thing [me thinking]. here is what i think we are for in the emerging:

Scot McKnight explores whether the emerging conversation is The Future or A Fad.

It’s hard to hear so many voices - where to turn? Why can’t God just blast through all the words and opinions and thoughts and reactions and simply drill the truth straight into my brain? I find folks in the emerging conversation sighing when I tell them that I’m part of an evangelical/traditional church as though there’s no hope for us. I find fellow congregants hostile and suspicious if I mention the word “emerging” as though I’m going to try to secretly convert them to the Dark Side (which sounds a lot like how we do evangelism in the first place, eh?).

One thing that has resonated with me, that fans my wavering flame of hope, has been Andrew’s particular words:

And its not because the emerging church in North America is necessarily guilty of the things ascribed to them by the critics. In many cases the critics are wrongly informed. But sometimes the only window to what God is doing in the emerging church is through these critics. The identity and definition of the American emerging church thus rests, by default, on what the critics say. If you had more of a personal relationship with the mainstream churches and institutions then some of these issues could be ironed out before the misfires hit the press.

This is what I’ve felt has been part of my calling, Lord help me. And so I’ll, as he says, continue to turn to Scripture. I’ll worship and discern with my community. And I’ll find my identity not in a movement, but in Christ - my source of Light.

So folks keep asking me when Iím going to write a book: I think theyíre telling me Iím verbose.

Part of me thinks I should write something; but part of me thinks I havenít lived enough life to have anything to share. I think about writing a personal journey, but with the abundance of blogs and autobiographies and memoirs and reflection-oriented books, I wonder if Iíd just add another drop to the flooding pond. I think about writing a more technical book, but really: what do I know? And like I could write something and not make it personal: HA!

What are things that are on your mind? What are questions you think a lot about? What would you like to hear about from another person?

Todayís message at worship was entitled ìBread of Lifeî - looking at the passage in John 6:35:

ìJesus said, “I am the Bread of Life. The person who aligns with me hungers no more and thirsts no more, everî (MSG).

We were encouraged to question what is sustaining us - Christ or other things? What does it mean for Christ to be our sustaining bread? How might we be fully dependent on God? Bread was laid out on tables throughout the sanctuary, and we were encouraged to get a piece of bread and eat/consume it as we ponder/meditate/dialogue with the Spirit regarding what sustains us.

This whole topic can be a mildly touchy subject for Quakers who have a tradition of abstaining from traditional bread and wine communion. Some cite that it stems from scripture stated later in John:

ìThe Spirit can make life. Sheer muscle and willpower don’t make anything happen. Every word I’ve spoken to you is a Spirit-word, and so it is life-makingî (6:63 MSG)

meaning anything the Spirit matters and the fleshly acts donít. However, Iíve heard a different take: I have a friend who thinks of every meal as an opportunity for communion - to break bread and encounter God in community. He doesn’t feel called to engage in communion once a month/week, but in the breath of everyday life.

Iím reading Emerging Churches: Creating Christian Communities in Postmodern Cultures by Eddie Gibbs and Ryan K. Bolger (only read the first chapter, but so far itís pretty accurate of my experience). When looking at church experiences in the U.S. and U.K., the authors noted:

According to different timetables and different degrees in various traditions, the church removed the symbolic, the mystical, and the experiential to make space for logical and linear ways of thinking and living. . . The church continues to communicate a verbal, linear, and abstract message to a culture whose primary language consists of sound, visual images, and experience, in addition to wordsî (20).

I have a friend who has left the Friends tradition to become Episcopalian: she says, ìThere *needs* to be more ritual and liturgy in our lives!î Sheís not saying that participating in these acts secures her ìsalvationî (she loves space created for open worship), but rather that tradition helps her experience God more fully. Communion might not be meaningful every time, but then again, open worship might not either.

How can the Quaker tradition speak to a generation that ìwhen the mystery, the visual, the ritual, the touch, and the beauty are removed, little is leftî (21). When I hear ìQuakers donít take communion,î it sounds pretty exclusionary of othersí experience - many times it said with a tone of ìweíre above taking communion.î What if itís meaningful to others, and what if our ìpronouncementî impedes others experiencing God? How can we extend the embrace of God in worship whole-heartedly and remain authentic to our identity? Is that an issue?

Iíve grown up in the Quaker denomination; I have a new appreciation for my tradition, but Iím wondering why our numbers are so small. Since Iíve been part of the yearly meeting, I havenít seen much church planting. Iíve been part of a church plant: a slow, never really thriving church plant, though I did learn and experience a good deal during that time. I can only name a very few church plants that have taken.

At the conference many people commented that our tradition has so much to offer other denominations - so why canít we get it out there?

Sitting in some meetings at the conference, I heard folks talking about church planting. I figured if anyone would be on the cutting edge, it would be these folks. What did I hear?

ìI canít seem to plant a church: the boards wonít free up money for me.î
ìHow am I supposed to plant a church when I have to go through so much bureaucratic tape?î
ìIím doing a church plant: they gave me money and dropped me off in an area that they think needs to be churched. But it doesnít seem to be working . . .î

My jaw almost dropped: if Emergent is supposed to be so ìpost-modern,î then why are folks planting churches the modern way? Why do you need a board to start a church? Why not go into an area, begin to meet people, see if they want to draw together into a gathering, and seek further assistance when itís needed? Boards should be somewhat like grant foundations: they usually offer money for a one-time thing - something that will help out an already existing and thriving group.

ìRevolutionaries will respond to the presence and principles of God whenever and wherever possible, without regard to historical or societal inhibitions. The standard that concerns Revolutionaries is simple: does the mechanism provide a way of advancing my faith, without compromising Scripture or any of the passions of a true believer?î - Revolution 67.

Resources I think will be important for next-gen church planting:
Simple Church - the blog of Harold Behr
Organic Church - “Our goal is to partner with anyone grappling with the how to’s of being and doing church in an increasingly post-modern and post-Christendom context.”
Steve Addison’s blog - World Changers: On movements for the renewal and expansion of the church.
Forge - Missional Training
CMA Resources - Church Multiplication Associates

I attended a gathering for folks heading up or wanting to start an Emergent Cohort. It took me a while to figure out what the heck they were talking about: is a cohort a worship gathering? The leadership of a worship gathering in the same area?

It turns out that a cohort is a gathering of folks interested in the emerging conversation. It can take place once a quarter, once a month, once a week (though the laterís a bit much). Someone volunteers to coordinate it: they arrange an area, a topic, a time, and get the info out (generally online). The gathering has a topic to look at, such as social justice, poverty, new monasticism, etc. - all through a postmodern lens: what does that look like for individuals? For the local area? For the world? Speakers can rotate through the group, or a speaker can be brought in: but the crux of it is that itís a conversation. Basically itís what we experienced at the conference, but on the local level: a safe place to ask questions and look at whatís going on theologically.

Emergent offers to put the cohort contact information on the website: they help coordinate efforts between cohorts and get info out to folks seeking to find a place to talk.

I had a chat with a person who was frustrated with the ETC: ìWhen folks think that this little conversation is going to change the world, thatís just wrong,î i.e. when we get stuck on the words and terminology and try to figure everything out rather than focus on encountering God (which can happen through conversation and all other realms of our lives), it doesnít work. But if we gather together expecting to be present with God, dialogue with God, and experience with God, then it all comes together.

Jason and I have thought about coordinating such a gathering: we somewhat experience that at Newberg Friends with our Emerging Adventure meetings (figuring out where Godís calling individuals of the church as well as the larger church gathering). But how great would it be to expand the experience: folks from other church gatherings/locations/ways of life. How wonderful would it be to provide a safe place to ask tough questions, to get past this ìthinned out versionî of Christianity that many of us exist in, to see what this whole Christian call of living is really about? Would anyone be interested?

I don’t know that we would fit in with Emergent’s definition of cohorts (I doubt I’m going to attract a whole lot of theologians or emerging leaders), but frankly, I’d like it to be a safe place for *anyone* to question and dialogue: keep it open to all - that seems more representative of the intent behind the gatherings.

Would you be interested in doing something similar? Let me know: even if you’re not in my local area, I think we can pool efforts/support/ideas and get something cool going.

It reminds me of “Baby steps to four o’clock.”

GiveMeaning.com is a website for the $5 philanthropist. Itís based on the premise that many of us would gladly give a few minutes of our time and a few dollars if we knew it could actually affect someone or something we care about. By joining together with other people who are passionate about the same things we are, we can make a meaningful difference.

It’s times like these that I love the internet.

HT

Found out that a person already wrote the book I dreamed about: One Step Closer: Why U2 Matters to Those Seeking God

Questions asked by a Postmodern Negro and Tim Keel of Jacobís Well in KC.

Free of Charge was written to shape Christianity to shape others. Our culture is graceless; we need resources.

Content versus form/relationships: we obsess about ìwhatî we believe; weíve forgotten to ask about the procedure. Weíve forgotten to ask how relationships function. What is the character of relationships spoken about in the Bible? We bracket content for a while; concentrate on values of interchange governed.

Eugene Peterson has said that we live in a pornographic society: everyone is objectified. We should step back and look at the larger picture: that a person is larger than the issue.

We live thinned out versions of the Christian faith - those are the ones that are most easily misused.

There is an art to giving - how one gives: it must be practiced. Give more than you expect to get; if you donít believe, how could you ever forgive, and why would you?

Traditions often have self-obsessed God: believe God wants all the glory - thatís why you give. It makes self-obsessed followers.

We donít believe the Gospel because of the church; we believe the Gospel, so we participate in the community of the church.

On Tuesday after our breakout sessions an announcement was made that women interested in the Emerging Women Leaders Initiative were going to meet: of course, my companions all whipped their heads towards me and said, ìYouíre gonna go, right?!!î See, theyíre the type that, even though they didnít have any reason to stay, theyíd hang out at Yale so that I could go connect with folks - theyíre the best.
We tried to gather in the large room, but noise levels scuttled us across the quadrangle to a room next to the Henri Nouwen Prayer Chapel (not very impressive - but still: cool). We sat in a large circle/square and shared our names and our involvement in church. ìHi, Iím . . . and Iím a pastor.î ìIím . . . and Iím getting my Ph.D from a divinity school.î ìIím . . . and Iím an ordained priest.î Over. And over. And over. Panic started to rise in my chest: I donít fit in here - Iím not qualified. I came up with a ìIím Aj, and I write material for and lead a small group focused on spiritual formationî - I didnít think saying ìI blog when Iím not taking my sixteen-month old to his daily Freddies/church/library outingî would wow them all that much.

No one was *truly* directing the meeting, but a few were lending facilitation. The grant for the website ran out; the website is broken; a grant has been given to Emergent to do a brand-spankiní new website which will have a specific section for women. What would we like to be on it? And thatís when I became incredibly uncomfortable.

The pain started to outpour: women started expressing how they have been put down or neglected or not supported or outright criticized for being in a pastoral role. Theyíd like to start a church, but they know the higher ups (mostly men) wonít give them the time of day. They have congregations of folks who feel like refugees from the traditional church, and they donít know how to build bridges when they feel the same. They wanted a safe place to come, talk, be in a supportive community - and an easy way to do that would be online.

All of a sudden the website and the whole initiative was starting to look completely different that I imagined: when the noise of Irish feet jigging madly in my head grew too loud, I finally had to speak.

ìUm, I just need to clarify something. I think Iím the only person in this room who hasnít or isnít attending Seminary, and frankly I donít plan to. I feel that I have a call to ministry, but itís not that at this time. It sounds like this website or initiative is geared towards women in Seminary, and I just wanted to clarify that. I guess Iíve been blessed because I was raised a Quaker, and the stuff youíre talking about (lack of support in call to leadership) is completely foreign to me: the first time I was treated like a girl was just a few years ago, and frankly I couldnít figure out what was going on. I have a lot of support, male and female, encouraging me to follow through with my own particular call.

See, because at home Iíve talked with women about this site, and they were so excited because they too donít plan on attending Seminary or necessarily leading up front. The traditional church doesnít always make it easy for women to lead, but the forms that Emergent latched onto does: itís more viable to help folks like stay-at-home moms to be able to minister with their daily lives. We imagined that the website would be a place to provide resources for alternative-styles of leading, not necessarily up front pastoral roles. My call is to be with my sixteen-month old son, and I donít think thatís wrong. But I would like to connect with folks who are doing things like I am.î

I almost cried - partly because I was tired and on non-drowsy drugs, but also because I tend to get weepy when Christ is poking at my spirit. I donít think anybody in the room knew who I was going in, but they did after that outburst. Folks were incredibly kind assuring me that they also want to see that sort of resource out on the web. They asked if Iíd be willing to work on that, to which I said yes - even though Iím busy, I have the blessing of knowing that there are these sorts of resources out there, and I want to share them with others.

My mother-in-law told me a story about the Come to the Water conference put on by the Wesleyan/Holiness Womenís Clergy. She said the first conference was basically an unintentional bawlfest: as they gathered together, women mourned and grieved the wounds that theyíve sustained from being in ministry - many because people doubt or criticize their call to lead. The conference was a safe place for them to share and grieve.

The next yearís conference was expected to be the same: folks packed tissue and were prepared to pour out their hearts. But it wasnít: people didnít really cry, but rather listened and conversed - the time was spent training and equipping. Why was it different? They were in a place of healing. The first conference helped them grieve and begin the process of healing so that they could continue to do their ministry.

When my dad picked me up, he asked his ìworthiness gaugingî question: I said the conference was good, and he asked, ìWere there any healings?î And I could honestly say, ìYes.î I think that Emergent women recognize the need for a safe place, a place to receive salve and prayer for their wounds. Then they can come to a place of equipping and strengthening. How exciting! Graham Cooke says our job isn’t to avoid wounds; it’s to get healed up faster.

I still donít know if I truly fit in - if Iím an Emergent woman leader. But I know Iím an emerging woman leader, and for me, I think thatís quite alright.

I attended a breakout session facilitated by Karen Ward, ìAbbessî of Church of the Apostles located in the Fremont district in Seattle (hey: Iíve been there! To Fremont - not so much to the church, sadly). It was hard to choose which breakout session to go to: I was looking for one that fit with evangelism (since thatís the Board that helped sponsor my trip so that I will do a workshop at Yearly Meeting), but none spoke directly to it - probably because evangelism should occur as a bi-product of listening to Christ rather than something we try and teach ourselves, eh? Karen is one of the few female voices I hear out in the emerging blogosphere, and she lives so close, so I wanted to connect with her. Plus, what Quaker wouldnít be drawn to monasticism?!! Seriously.

Karenís story.
Karen was an ordained priest (Episcopal or Lutheran) in Chicago, trying to plant a church, but wasnít getting a good vibe from the higher-ups. She went to Seattle where her ache to create a church where non-churched friends could find the welcome/hospitality of God - a prodigal church - open space - a safe place to ask questions.

Karen believes that there is one Christian/catholic tradition rather than overlays of different practices/theologies. Basically, denominations have a certain attentiveness to different elements of Christianity. Each denomination is similar to an order in the Catholic church (Dominican, Franciscan, Quaker, Lutheran, etc.). Questions to ask would be ìhow do you go deeper into/become more attentive to the traditions of my order? What needs to be lifted up?î We donít necessarily need to look to new traditions: lift up the old/practiced. Rather than calling traditions ìnon-Christian,î they are simply ìnot part of this communityís tradition.î

Her gathering has forms that they follow: they look at the rhythm and intent of life. They seek a way of living more attentively. The gathering follows the yearly/seasonal calendar - it sets the rhythm for the church year. Holistic living: everything is worship.

Just like an abbey, they have different levels of belonging - from visitors to pilgrims (extended visitors) to monks (four men actually live in the building).

Their building has a steeple - something that calls the community to worship (noon day prayers, etc.).

They focus on being incarnational rather than missional: incarnational acknowledges that we are all being constantly converted by Christ, and out of that we invite others to participate (missional).

They are developing practices and a rule of life - this is more than a mission and/or vision statement: itís a covenant within the community. Itís a way to describe bonds within the community: not if, but how do you belong.

Exclusion is not an option: participants are agreeing to embrace a certain way of living. Lifestyle is a doctrinal statement: no ìlifestyle agreementî other than the greatest commandment - love God and love your neighbor. Because it is a lifestyle, there is no programmical courses - not because they are opposed to it, but rather because they are continuously talking about reflecting. They practice the embrace of God - itís not our welcome, but God welcoming us; therefore, there can be no exclusion (the parables of the wedding banquet and the prodigal son are very important to them).

They school themselves in the traditions of monasticism before they have created their rule - rules can vary from vague to very practical (this is when you put the gardening tools away and how to do it). They are working these rules into their own lifestyle. They try to exercise discipline within community: not hierarchical, but rather listening and discerning in community. Giving freedom for the Spirit to lead the community to Truth can be messy, but itís what weíre called to do.

Monasteries are self-supporting; therefore, they are looking to do something to be self-sustaining in a way that reflects their community (which happens to be a community of artists, so theyíve got some crazy artistic plans happening).

Resources:
Schools of Conversion: 12 Marks of Monasticism
New Monasticism
Celtic Monasticism
Rachelle Mee-Chapman

The idea of living such an intentional life greatly excited me: I know of many peers who ache for such a life. I wonder how it could be lived out in the suburbs . . .

Miroslav Volf is an incredibly brilliant man: one of the things that lends me to believe that, other than his written works, is that he *takes time to think before he answers questions*. Basically he was invited to a conference where he was put on the hot seat for three days - a barrage of questions thrown from any angle. To handle that is one thing; to handle it after having been interrogated in the former Yugoslavia as a young person is another; to handle it with wisdom, grace, and humility is a manifestation of God’s fingerprints in your life.

But of course, when words are written and edited, they can be taken out of context.

We were on the topic of our anemic version of Christianity today and how lousy we are at embracing God, and Volf made a comment. I have it written down (summarized) as:

Many atheists are closer to God than theists ñ angry with God. Taking God seriously through rebellion of God.

The Yale Daily News has chronicled it in their paper as:

ìI think that often atheists are closer to God than any theists, than any Christians,” Volf said. “It’s taking God seriously to rebel against God.”

When this was read outloud to the professor, he rolled his eyes and laughed and said something along the lines of ìI don’t think I *said* that.î

Despite the difference in quotations (one a little more sensational than the other), I have to give credence to his thoughts.

Do you ever have it where themes in life seem to come at you from all angles? The same ideas fly into your vision repeatedly, making you wonder if you truly do live in the Matrix? My book group is reading The Emperor of Ocean Park: basically itís a well-written John Grisham book. I started and finished the book on the trip. In the middle of it is this totally random, redeeming priest character whoís the only person to speak life and light into the book (itís a bit of a downer). But in the middle of his speech, he says:

ìYou know, a very great thinker named Martin Buber once wrote that there are no atheists, because the atheist has to struggle with God every day. Maybe that is why Scripture tells us, ëThe fool has said in his heart there is no Godî (347).

ìThis was back in the fifties, of course, a time when philosophers, even atheist philosophers, were expected to know their Bible. After all, the Bible has been by far the most influential book in Western history, praise God, probably in the history of the whole world. Well, how can anybody pretend to understand or to explain that world without understanding the book that built it? But when you come to know the Bible, you come to know God. So the atheist who has truly tried to understand the world will already be closer to God than many Christians, because he will know Godís word. The Lord creates many paths to his house, and he will, in the fullness of time, gather in even many of those who believe that they do not believe; for, in struggling with God, they are halfway to belief alreadyî (348).

Wow.

Then I remembered back in high school, telling someone about my group of friends: ìI hang out with Quakers and atheists.î Which was true. I wonder if we enjoyed each othersí company so much because we recognized and respected that same struggle with God, whether or not we chose to acknowledge it.