Journeying Into Faith

Reading through books of Moses (Genesis to Deuteronomy), we see how God led the people of Israel on their journey into the Promise Land. That journey mirrors much of our journey into faith. It is a journey into the depths of a relationship with God. In this post, I want to examine how God guided the nation, how they followed, and how that carries over into the journey God has in store for us.

1. The Israelites were led by the visible God
Scripture tells us that God led the nation through two visible signs. During the day, a cloud would lead them and during the evening journeys a pillar of fire would go before them. When God decided to stop, the cloud would stop and the people would settle in for an undetermined period of time. During this time the tabernacle would be assembled and the cloud would hover over the dwelling place of God. When it was time for the journey to continue, the cloud would rise, at which time the people would pack up the tabernacle and their own possessions and be prepared for the cloud to lead them through the next part of the journey.

2. The Disciples were led by the visible Son
God, live and in the flesh, led the disciples for three years. Each day Jesus would hear from God and the journey would begin anew. He took them from one end of Judah to the other, through Samaria, around and back again as He journeyed to the cross. The disciples did not know where the journey would lead from one day to the next. Rather, it was a dependance on God the Son each day.

Jesus told Thomas something fascinating post-resurrection. “Thomas”, Jesus said, “it is great that you see and believe. But what’s better will be all those who do not see yet still believe.” A few days later, Jesus ascends. A few days later we read about Pentecost.

3. Christ Followers are led by the invisible Spirit
From the ascension of Jesus until today, followers of Christ (people who do not see but still believe) have been led by the invisible Holy Spirit. That just doesn’t seem fair does it? Well, maybe not, but at least we don’t have to wait centuries between God speaking into our lives.

The difference between God leading visibly (as in the case of the nation and the disciples) and invisibly as He leads Christ-followers is that the visible God was external to the people whereas the invisible Spirit resides within each follower of Christ. The visible is not as important in our case because the invisible is always there, prompting us, teaching us and leading us.

However, there is a similarity between the Israelites after the construction of the Temple and today’s Christ-followers. During that time, the nation heard from God through dreams, visions, natural disasters, war and slavery. They also had prophets who themselves heard from God and spoke that word to the people. He even spoke in a still, small voice and through a donkey. Post-Pentecost, we see something similar. God spoke to people through visions, trances, and dreams (Acts 10:3-16), He spoke though prison sentences, an inner voice (Acts 16:1-10) and visitations from God or his messengers (Acts 23:11). Despite the invisible nature of God, he still leads experientially. Guidance is done through encounters.

Faith Markers
Along the journey through the desert, God provides faith markers to the nation to show them that not only was He still around, but He was listening and He was providing all of their needs. Whether it was manna for food or water to drink or forty years in the desert without the need for new clothes or shoes, God took care of them one day at a time.

For post-Pentecost Christians, God provides us with faith markers as well. Several years ago, during my senior year in college, I came home from the morning service, which has been quite inspiring, and sat down in my “thinking chair,” at the time it was a dirty yellow queen anne chair. It has since been re-covered and it is still my thinking chair. I put on some classical music and just closed my eyes and quieted my mind. While it wasn’t audible, it was loud in my spirit. God posed to me a question: “David, what do you want?” Without hesitating, I told God three things that I truly wanted. And no, they did not include gobs of money, fancy cars, or trivial stuff like that. They were things only God could do. For the next year, God answered each one of those. Two he provided. One he did not. However, for a year I prayed and waited and watched. That period of my life has become a faith marker. When I struggle with God and where He is leading me, or when He seems silent and far off, I go back to that period in my life and, in the words of Rich Mullins, it keeps “giving me hope to carry on.”

Those faith markers are emotional connecting points that are important in following God on this journey into faith. They are important reminders of how God has provided in the past. They keep us going as He takes us deeper into faith, particularly because He will take us through deserts where we walk into a fierce sandstorm that tests our dependence and obedience upon God.

The Goal
As I read the story of the Israelites, the disciples time with Jesus and examine my own life experience with God, I notice something important about God’s goal in how He leads us. His goal is day-by-day leadership.

If you notice how He guided the nation, they had to be ready at a moments notice to pack up and move. They could not plan into the future. They would wake up each morning knowing that today might be the day for transition. Tomorrow was never really planned. The disciples experienced the same kind of guidance. They woke up each morning not knowing what the day would bring, where they would journey next, or who they would encounter. Each day was a day of the unknown.

The past two years of my life have been a period where I longed to see God move and work. But all I have heard is silence. With me wanting to know where and when and to what God may lead us, God has chosen to rest us right where we are. There has come a point in this two year journey that I transitioned from wanting to know five years out, two years out, even a year out what God would have us do to waking up each day and asking God what He had in store for me today.

I keep going back to the Lord’s prayer quite often. There’s that part of the prayer where Jesus prays, “Give us this day our daily bread…” I paraphrase this verse according to what I believe is its intended meaning: “Give me today what I need for today and tomorrow I will come back to you and ask you again.”

The goal of the journey into faith is a total day-by-day, moment-by-moment dependence on the leadership and guidance of God. For a society enamored by goals and plans, this causes us discomfort. But the truth is, every morning we wake up to could be a day of transition. It could be the day that a loved one dies or a home is destroyed or a job is lost. It could be the day that brings great news, notice of a new job, or a move across the country. We are not promised the next second, much less the next day, month or year. We need to anticipate that each moment is a moment of transition and change.

That sometimes means God becomes silent for a period of time. That period of time can be so quiet that it screams at us, a period of time that St. John of the Cross calls the dark night of the soul. We so long for God to speak, to give us any light at the end of the tunnel (even if it is a train) that we spend every available moment crying out to Him. His silence is both exhausting and thirst-creating, so much in fact that we keep coming back for more. In doing so, He is removing our own self-reliance and developing our God-dependence. As much as we have tried to lead ourselves by our dreams, goals, and desires, we fall before Him to wake up each morning asking Him what He wants us to do today.

There comes a point in time, and it is different for each person, that this day-by-day dependence becomes our dearest friend instead of worst enemy. We learn to embrace it. We look forward to what God will provide for us today.

Let's All Go to Sunday School!

A few weeks ago, I had a call from a lady who used to be the Minister of Education of a large denominational church in the South. She, along with my denominational tribe were planning an event to train leaders in Sunday School in our state as part of a big event that will be happening over the next couple of years. She wanted me to attend and to bring my Sunday School director. She also told me they were going to also begin working out the opportunity to partner us (and other churches in our tribe) with Ministers of Education from churches in the South so we could have insight into how to effectively run our education ministry. I told her that we didn’t have Sunday School, so she said they would treat our small groups like Sunday School. I also told her that because of our size I would be the only one attending, assuming that I went. She really wanted me to bring someone. She also pushed for a commitment, though they did not have the date, place or time determined yet.

Today I received a call from that same lady letting me know that the event would be next week at a certain church in our state. She wanted me to bring my Sunday School leadership. I told her again that we don’t have Sunday School and that I would be the only one from my church attending. She again pushed for me to bring someone that could be trained as Sunday School director. I made no promises.

So I was driving home and thinking about this call and it really frustrated me. There are a few reasons for that frustration:

1. I just finished doctoral work on changing behavior. I know this: information does not lead to transformation. Sitting in a Sunday School class will not bring about spiritual formation. All it does is dispense information that few will really take home with them regardless of the ability of the teacher. In other words…Sunday School really is not effective for spiritual formation. Trust me, I’ve been in Sunday School for 35 years in all kinds of contexts…I know it well.

2. Why would I listen to a Minister of Education from the South who has no idea how to do ministry in my context? If they want to facilitate discussion with my leadership, that’s one thing. But to help me do ministry in an area where they have no clue about people in this area is a bit silly.

3. We don’t have Sunday School. We do spiritual formation as part of leadership development in a holistic way. We mentor, not hold Bible classes.

4. Studies show that our denominational way of doing things is not effective. Why are would I want to perpetuate a system that doesn’t work? To quote the (in)famous Ed Stetzer, “What is the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing the same way and expecting different results.”

What we really need to consider is changing the system not the method. Spiritual formation is a journey towards wholeness. It requires emotional healing, a new way of thinking, a community of faith, and identity transformation. It is done in sharing life experiences. It is most effective around a dinner table, at the golf course, fishing, on vacation, or around a campfire, not in a Sunday School class. Our denomination needs to change the system, not the method. In fact, we need change a lot of systems.

But what do I know? I’m just a guy who pastors a church in the Mid-Atlantic that has trained, mentored and released over 100 missionaries that our church has sent out to do ministry all over our country in the past five years in the marketplace.

So the question I have is this…Do I go to this meeting next week? And if I do, how do I tell this lady nicely that I appreciate her but I am not into perpetuating a program I do not believe works? Any thoughts? Of course, it could be that I’m just being too harsh. Feel free to comment on that as well.

Community...Really?

While considering some more implications of the previous post about how liberalism has destroyed our sense of belonging, I considered what I might say to a mega or large multi-site church pastor about community, belonging and their church. I began to ponder if it would be possible for a church to say they want to be a church of small groups – an attempt at belonging and community – and still be mega. I have come to the conclusion that it would be extremely hard, if not impossible for a mega or large multi-site church to legitimately say they want to create community and belonging. In fact, despite their words, I would go so far to say that what they do demonstrates that small groups are not that important.

Before we get to the basis of my conclusion, however, let’s talk community.

In a Leadership Journal article, Len Sweet, hints that community is a place where people have similar interests, that is organized around a single purpose, where people can they tell the stories most central to who they are and find people eager to hear them, and where people participate so fully and have their lives changed by the experience. With these characteristics, Sweet includes the aspects of commonality and purpose, which are important to relationship development. Many with no common interests will come together simply for a common purpose, such as building a Habitat home. It is in that purpose community is formed and expressed. (1)

A Spirit-created community where people have a place to be embraced for who they are and how they all struggle would be refreshing. The normative way of considering spiritual community is through small groups within a church. Almost all churches have them and they are organized around many different factors. Some are organized around age, while some are organized around felt needs. Other small groups are organized around a common purpose. Some take place on Sunday mornings, others on Sunday evenings, and still others take place in peoples homes during the week. Yet, according to Joe Myers, “Small groups deliver only on one or two specific kinds of connection. A person’s search for community is more complex than this. The truth is that people can experience belonging in groups ranging in size from two to 2,000 or more. People have the competencies to pursue many different paths in their search for community.”

For Myers, community and belonging can happen in four spatial areas: public, social, personal, and intimate. Public space is where significant numbers of relationships are needed to experience a sense of belonging and community. It is about shared experiences, such as a football game or a concert. It is not about anonymity, but about connection and when people feel connected they can be open to participating in the experience. Within that connection and experience, community is formed, even for a moment.

Social belonging is “the small talk of our relationships.” It is the place where people connect by sharing pieces of their lives. This is where people try to make a good first impression. Personal space is where we connect through sharing private experiences. These are close friends, more than an acquaintance, but not yet completely and totally transparent. Intimate belonging is the place where people have complete transparency, where they are naked and not ashamed. Very few of a person’s relationships are intimate.

It is the personal space, Myers believes, where most people believe that the level of connectedness occurs and where actual community happens. Yet healthy community is achieved when there is harmonious connections in all four spaces, meaning that there are more public belongings than social, more social than intimate, and very few intimate. Therefore, community can occur in a large gathering where a person does not know many people, in a luncheon, at a meeting, in a small group, or in one-on-one conversation. Community is not about size; it is about a divinely created connection where people can interact and engage in each other’s stories. (2)

There is something that connects Myers’ and Sweet’s definition of community: shared stories. If community’s major characteristic is the sharing of life and life’s stories, then one has to question whether a mega or large multi-site church can actually create community and belonging.

Here is the basis of my conclusion:

1. Their buildings do not create room for community or belonging.
Very few church facilities, large or small, are created for community. They are designed for storing and herding large groups of people. Very few spaces are created so that community can take place. Even churches with “Sunday School” classes suffer from this. These rooms, class rooms they are often called, are set up in a traditional teacher-student lecture format where chairs are in rows and all face one direction with a singular focus – the stage, platform, black (or white) board, or teacher.

If churches were really concerned about being a church of small groups, the question needs to be asked: Why build large buildings?

2. Their worship does not create environments for community or belonging
Worship is a production. It’s a show. People come and are emotionally aroused and entertained. The audience (congregation) is passive in regards to those around them. There is no communication or interaction. They passively sit and listen to someone give a talk. But they are not sharing in the life-stories of those around them. They are spectators in a show.

3. Their budgets do not reflect an emphasis on community or belonging
Look at a typical large church budget and what do you notice? Most of their budget is spent on buildings, gatherings, and salaries. Why does a church of small groups need so much overhead? Does that overhead aid in the development of community?

What their buildings, gathering, and budgets demonstrate is that what they want to do is be a large organization with a good show, hoping the show will draw a crowd and help some people become Christ-followers. They may even emphasize small groups and try to organize small groups. Some may join small groups and community may take place in some of those communities. But does the church in general really want to be a church of small groups with a strong sense of community and belonging? No. They are either ignorant or are deceiving themselves if they think otherwise.

In reality, they are simply a reflection of our segregated and lonely culture searching for a place to belong. More community takes place in the marketplace than in  most churches, especially large churches.

(1) Leonard Sweet, “The Quest for Community,” Leadership Journal XX, no. 4 (1999).

(2) Joseph R. Myers, The Search to Belong: Rethinking Intimacy, Community, and Small Groups (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Youth Specialties, 2003), 18, 41-51.

Which I are We?

The metanarrative is that great overarching story that helps define our lives.  It places us within all of history and on the shoulders of those who have paved the way for how we live, function, love, and relate.  The metanarrative that all of humanity lives out of is that of being created in the image of God. No other created thing else can say that. It is humanity’s identity.

But in the Fall, humanity lost its true identity. The fall forced humanity to be “like” God. We found ourselves in competition with God, for control, provision, wisdom and sufficiency. Our identity suffered, because we became broken eikons. We live life with a broken view of ourselves. We try to compensate for that brokenness, but the truth is that the pot cannot fix its own cracks. With a broken identity, we struggle to find a place for our story to fit into a greater story, any story that will give us meaning, purpose, and identity. Losing our identity caused us to lose our place in the metanarrative.

Apart from the metanarrative, creation has lost its purpose. All of creation. Therefore, not only is it important for humanity to be made whole, but all of creation is to be remade again. Creation feels the effects of humanity’s brokenness. Restoring the identity of humanity and making humanity whole brings a re-creation of all of all creation.

Unfortunately, institutional Christianity has distorted the metanarrative. The metanarrative is framed in the context of heaven and hell. The emphasis is on how bad people are, how they are all going to hell and the only way to stay of hell is to believe certain things about Jesus. The end result is that you get eternity with Christ in heaven.

Here’s the problem with the institutional metanarrative. First, it’s an incomplete metanarrative. The Bible opens and closes with creation and re-creation, not the fall and redemption. Unless you discuss the whole metanarrative – creation, fall, redemption, re-creation – you lose the impact that God’s metanarrative emphasizes: wholeness, peace and completeness.

Secondly, the hell/heaven metanarrative has proven to be a failure. Hang with me here, I know that is a mighty strong word. But part of what Christianity is battling today is its lack of ethics. Our leader, Jesus, behaves in ways that “christians” do not. Our behavior does not match our belief. As a result, the world sees our metanarrative as a failure.

The Biblical metanarrative – the re-creation of the world and the restoration of wholeness and relationships for the individual – is a place where all of humanity can find their place. We are all looking for wholeness. We are all looking for health. We are all looking for peace. If we frame life in this manner, we are able to touch all of mankind, because these are all of man’s basic longings and desires.

The problem for Christians is that we ourselves don’t understand what it means to be whole, healthy, and complete. We are as emotionally jacked up as everyone else. We have adopted a spiritual formation approach that is about knowledge, not behavior. We do not know why we act the way we act. So we read more books, go to more seminars, and listen to more sermons. But we fail to get past the layers of scarring and brokenness to truly uncover our identity in Christ.

Integrating our identity with God’s holistic metanarrative might be one place to start.

I was reading in I John 3 this morning for my daily worship and this passage from The Message translation hit me.  It is so much of my doctoral worship in life formation:

18-20 My dear children, let’s not just talk about love; let’s practice real love. This is the only way we’ll know we’re living truly, living in God’s reality. It’s also the way to shut down debilitating self-criticism, even when there is something to it. For God is greater than our worried hearts and knows more about us than we do ourselves.

21-24 And friends, once that’s taken care of and we’re no longer accusing or condemning ourselves, we’re bold and free before God! We’re able to stretch our hands out and receive what we asked for because we’re doing what he said, doing what pleases him. Again, this is God’s command: to believe in his personally named Son, Jesus Christ. He told us to love each other, in line with the original command. As we keep his commands, we live deeply and surely in him, and he lives in us. And this is how we experience his deep and abiding presence in us: by the Spirit he gave us.

Our freedom to live and be all that we are in Christ is a result of us understanding ourselves, having the love of God cast out the fear and doubt that the world has programmed us with. May you discover who God created you to be.

I want to recommend a book for this:  it’s called Free To Be You.