Community in the Image of God: Mission (p. 9)

I wish I had written this post sooner, while last week's cohort meeting was fresh in my mind. We had a great conversation led by John Franke of Biblical Seminary on the missional nature of the triune God. The details are growing more fuzzy, but I'm going to attempt to pull them together as they mesh nicely with the thoughts that I've been sharing in relation to the image of God and Christian community. Franke suggested that mission was a part of God's very nature. This in itself was a fascinating approach; it made me wish again that I'd had more opportunity to take courses with him while at Biblical. He based this thought on the eternal community that exists in God's triune nature. God exists in an eternal relationship of love among the members of the Trinity - God is loving community in God's very self. Creation, then, is an act of love whereby the created other is invited into the eternal love relationship that is God's self. This creational invitation lies at the heart of what it means to be missional - God's eternal mission is to invite others to share the love of his eternal community.

What is interesting about this in connection with my current line of thought is that, not only does it provide a robust means for reflecting on the nature of mission, but it also serves to ground the creational mandate in missional purpose. God's rule in the creation narrative is generous, precisely because it represents an invitation to creation to enter into the God-life. God's purpose in the post-fall world remains exactly that - invitation has now become redemption. And God's purposes in redemption are entrusted to communities of people whose vocation is to image God before a watching world - first Israel, then later the Church, the gathered followers of Christ.

To be a community in the image of God, then, is to be missional. It is to be a community of people who are about something greater than just themselves. Put simply, a community that does not see itself as participating in God's redemptive activities in the world is a community that is missing its vocation of imaging God. God's rule is for the purposes of inviting others to enter into the God-life of love in community. If the image of God represents that authority delegated to humanity, then stewarding that authority calls us to do the same. We bear God's image not for ourselves, but for the benefit and blessing of all creation.

Technorati Tags: ecclesiology, image of God, imago dei, John Franke

Picking Up Steam

About a month ago, I mentioned that I had had a very encouraging conversation that had awakened a long-dormant dream that I've held for a number of years now. At the time, I was hesitant to say much - it seemed too good to be true. But this week I had another meeting, and things are picking up steam. I'm starting to believe this thing might actually happen. And I'm excited, more excited than I've been in some time.

Here's what's going on: I've now had several conversations with a local guy who oversees the regional church planting organization for the Brethren in Christ. And things look really good. I'm going to take part in some assessments in a few weeks, something that will give them (and me) a feel for whether I have the right skills/gifts/etc. And that's a good thing - at one time I probably would have balked at such an approach because it doesn't seem very organic. But then again I've seen enough of this sort of thing crash and burn because the wrong people were in the wrong place at the wrong time, so I respect that they want to use wisdom in this, and frankly I want the feedback from folks that have already done this sort of thing. The last thing I want is to get into something that I'm not equipped to handle.

I was surprised at how well my theology meshes with theirs. That's been one of my concerns - I've wanted to find a tradition where I'll fit, where I won't constantly feel as though I need to apologize for my take on things, and I get the sense that I'd actually find a theological home there. And in terms of planting, they're really embracing the missional movement. They don't look for a particular form but have congregations under their umbrella that range from the very traditional to some really exciting emerging-type communities. (That's not to say the other congregations aren't exciting as well. But there would be a lot of freedom in terms of the approach that we could take, and that's exciting. ;)

Of course, there's still quite a bit of road ahead. The assessment could determine that I'm not a good fit for them, or as I learn more about the group I might find some things that would cause me to rethink. But I don't get that sense. I have a settled feeling about this, something that for me is unusual enough that I'm paying attention. If the assessment goes well, then we'll have some more talks and start to work our way towards a strategy, not to mention pulling a team together. Then the work begins - for now, I'm reading, thinking, dreaming, and praying. And if you see this site start to make a shift in emphases, don't be surprised - more to come!

Great Conversations

I looked at my site yesterday and realized that I haven't posted anything this week. That feels odd, because I've written more than I have in a long time. But most of it is hidden in the comments of some of my earlier posts - I've been having a great conversation with Grace on my thoughts about power and structure in communities. Grace is an excellent thinker and writer, and my thoughts are more clear thanks to her questions and (gracefully spoken) corrections. So in lieu of a full post, take a read through the comments here and here - I think there are thoughts in there worth reading.

On another note, I had an opportunity to attend the Philly Emergent cohort again this week. John Franke came to discuss thoughts about mission and its origins in God's very being. What a great conversation - I won't get into the details here because it deserves a full post of its own, but you can check out the overview here if you're interested. It also, coincidentally, meshes quite well with my thoughts on image, so I certainly want to pull some of those insights into my current reflections on that subject.

One more note - this is a bit late, but I did want to post a link to an upcoming conference that I think sounds fantastic. Off the Map is hosting the Revolution conference in Seattle Nov 3-4. Sounds like a great lineup, including Barna, McLaren, and a host of other great folks. I attended an Off the Map event last year and was impressed. A few of us were able to hang out with the Off the Map folks after one of the evening sessions, and they're wonderful people. (And I don't just say that because Jim Henderson picked up the tab. ;) If I could make this event, I would definitely be there - Seattle is a bit of a hike for me, so I'll be reading about it and envying thinking of those who will be attending. You can get more info here; the blog is here with some interesting content, including an interview with Spencer Burke who is the nicest guy I've ever disagreed with. ;)

Technorati Tags: emergent, Off the Map, John Franke

Community in the Image of God: Empowerment (p. 8)

Yesterday I posted my thoughts on the nature of power in Christian community. My difficulty in these posts is that there's too much ground to cover - it feels as though I'm slogging through knee deep snow. Every post reminds me of how much more needs to be said. Yesterday's was probably where I've felt most like that; it was honestly about half a post that I just had to conclude. Now I'm going to break another practice of mine - allowing a post to have its own focus for a few days before moving on to another topic - because I just can't let this one sit half-stated.

Here's the problem that I started to discuss but never quite articulated: most people, in my experience, who have issues with the way we practice Christian community immediately default to critiquing the structure. The problem, depending on who you're reading, is the senior pastor model, or it's the paid clergy model, or it's the congregational model, or it's the model that doesn't follow Paul's teachings on eldership (usually male), or it's the corporate model, or it's... well, you get the picture. It's the structure's fault, and what we need is a new way to think about the structure. Or, alternately, we need to just get back to that One True Structure that dropped down from heaven immediately following the ascension. That will fix everything.

My problem with this line of thought is that I think it bypasses the actual problems altogether. I don't think the structure is the problem at all. Now, don't get me wrong - some structures are certainly in need of critiquing. But structure isn't like the Grail - it's not as though we find that One True Structure and everything is now sunshine and daisies. The problem is that every structure is inhabited by people - people who sometimes don't use power in the image of God. And that problem is inherent to all structures, so in some sense there isn't One True Structure at all, only broken people who sometimes succeed and sometimes fail at serving God and each other.

One thing that comes up often it seems in emerging church circles is a critique of paid staff. The argument gets framed in a number of different ways, but invariably the criticism always comes back to the fact that paying someone to serve the community either disenfranchises the people in the community or it lets them off the hook. On the other hand, the Spirit has gifted everyone in the community, so we shouldn't separate out one or a few for positional, paid leadership - to do so denies the priesthood of all believers or some such. And I recognize that there is some legitimacy to this complaint, that at times these criticisms are valid and that sometimes the ways these structures play out are functionally unhelpful or even detrimental. But to dismiss paid staff entirely I suggest misses the point - it's the One True Structure fallacy. Or let's remove the "pay" function from the equation. How are we to think about "leadership" in the image of God, leadership that is cruciform in nature? Is positional authority ever valid?

I've been suggesting all along that the proper use of authority in the image of God involves empowering others. And this, I think, is what is beautiful about having healthy leadership in a community. I confess that I hate the word "leadership" because I think it borrows too much from corporatespeak and carries an unhelpful set of assumptions. But I can't think of a better word without needing another post to define it - so I'm going with the terminology for now but understand that I only mean here people who are called out from among the community for the purposes of directing, governing, or administering the work of the community. If you're reading that carefully, you'll see I'm already moving in a particular direction. Congregational leadership, at its best, is marked by empowerment. The community has recognized the need for setting aside a few people to attend more closely to the "stuff" of the community - leadership, at its best, is empowered by the congregation to lead. It's not a top-down, corporate model where the CEO calls the shots and everyone else jumps. Nothing makes me cringe more than hearing pastors or other staff refer to themselves by such terminology. Positional authority in the image of God is a matter of empowerment. The leaders are called to serve the community through the community's recognition of the empowerment of the Spirit on their lives for the task - in a sense, it's a double empowerment, both Spirit and community.

But what does that mean? What are these folks empowered to do? I suggest that the community empowers congregational leaders for the purpose of further empowerment. This is, I think, a fairly straightforward reading of Ephesians:

It was he [Christ] who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.

In other words, congregational leaders are to be about the task of helping the community image God. A community sets aside people who will help that community in their vocation as the people of God. This isn't about structure. It's about the way that a structure functions. Any structure can be a tool for helping a community more appropriately reflect the image of God. Any structure can be damaging to that vocation. What is important in any structure is the way in which the people within that structure use power. If it is hoarded and used for personal advancement or gain, then the community will suffer. If it is given away and used to empower others, then the community will flourish.

Technorati Tags: ecclesiology, image of God, imago dei, power, community, theology

Community in the Image of God: Service (p. 7)

In my last post I began reflecting on the subject of power in the community of God. I referenced some of Yoder's excellent work on this subject in pointing to the cross as the foundation of NT ethics. I want to spend a bit more time unpacking this, because I think it is absolutely central to any discussion of ecclesiology (which is what this whole thing is supposed to be about ;). Unfortunately, I think it also happens to be most often one of the subjects that receives the least treatment, to our detriment.

"Power" is a loaded word, I freely admit. Often, when it's used about relationships or interactions between people, it seems to be used as a synonym for control or authority (in a negative sense). At its most basic, however, I think it's well within reason to simply use "power" to refer to the ability to act. This is, on the surface, an extraordinarily simplistic definition. However, a moment's thought should reveal that it is anything but. Take, for instance, this little blog of mine. Having a blog is a measure of power - I can post something, and my thoughts are distributed to a small number of folks who actually read what I say. In this sense, I have the ability to act, specifically as it relates to communication. I have power. Power, in this sense, is value-neutral; it simply represents my ability to distribute my ideas and thoughts. Many, many others also have this same power, some in greater measure (because of larger reader communities) and others less. Some do not have this power at all - perhaps they do not have access to an internet connection; perhaps they lack the knowledge of blogging; perhaps they cannot read or write. And here is where the question of power starts to move away from the realm of value-neutral: the question of who has power, in the sense of the ability to act, and who does not is sometimes (but not always) a question of justice. More on this later - we have some road yet to travel before we tackle the question of justice. There is a second, more immediate question that also confronts us as we move away from the value-neutral. Assuming that we are people who have the ability to act, what do we do with that power? This is, I'd argue, the central question of New Testament ethics from the vantage of the cross.

The cross only has meaning in the context of ethics if it can speak to the relationships between and interactions among people. This is, after all, the stuff of which ethics are made. And it is precisely in this context that the cross must - absolutely must - shape our understanding of authority. The premise of my argument is as follows: to be created in the image of God means to carry the delegated authority of God for accomplishing the divine task of completing the creation project. Christ is the one who demonstrates the perfect image of God. Christ's authority - authority received from the Father - is most perfectly demonstrated in his self-giving act on the cross. To use authority, then, as God's steward being formed in the image of Christ is to follow the example of Christ in self-giving. New Testament authority - Christian authority - is inherently cruciform. If it is not, then it is not Christian.

Ok - so that's a lot of hot air, unless it actually intersects with our day-to-day. Here, precisely here, is where I think church structures are often damaging to the purposes of the Kingdom. And it is precisely here where I think that many folks are starting to rethink existing structures - and I say for that Praise God. It cannot happen quickly or broadly enough. Daniel Kirk, who I met at a recent gathering of the Philly emergent cohort, recently posted these thoughts:

The servant/death model of ministerial leadership seems to be taking hold in missional circles, and once it's started to get inside your head you see that it's on nearly every page of the NT. This is one of those places where I think that conditions are right for more people giving a better reading to the idea of "Christian leadership" than has happened in the past. Corporate models don't work because they depend on a model of exercising coercive rather than self-sacrificial authority. (emphasis added)

I think he's exactly right here. To my way of thinking, there are two ways that one can exercise power: keep it for oneself and one's own benefit, or give it away. I have no question which of those two is cruciform. I also have no question which of those is prevalent in most church structures today - or, to be more specific, most American evangelical churches, which is my own context.

Here is the problem: too many churches today are structured on the basis of control. Power is centralized in the hands of one, or a few, key "leaders" who determine what does or does not happen in the community. The ability to act narrows to a select few. This can be accomplished in many different ways - means is not key here; intent is. How do I know if I am a part of such a structure? If the church is organized so that the resources are directed to fulfill the purposes of one, or a few, key "leaders", then I'd suggest that there is a power problem. If one person has the "vision" or the "mission", there's a problem. If one person ideologically dominates the community so that a healthy atmosphere of diverse opinions are unwelcome, there's a problem. If, in short, nobody can act without the blessing of the "leader" - then that community has failed its task of imaging God.

It's really not about the actual structures here so much as it is about the way those structures operate. I've been in churches with a senior pastor model that were simply fantastic, healthy communities. I've been in churches with team structures that were oppressive and, at times, abusive. I'm in a church currently that, to my knowledge, is a stellar example of the best kind of use of power here. I've served in churches that shame me to remember how power was used and abused. What sets a church apart - what identifies a church in the image of God - is simply an emphasis on service. If serving is a part of the very culture of the community, embodied by those who are in positional authority and embraced by the community at large, then a church images God well. And this is especially true for those in positional authority. "Leadership" is not a biblical mandate for New Testament communities. Service, however, is. Those who are in positional authority are there because of their desire to serve - to empower - others. They do not keep power for their own purposes. They give it away - empowering others and enabling them to do the same. New Testament authority is not "power over". In fact, that is something that is explicitly forbidden by Christ. Instead, the greatest are to be distinguished by their great service - by their greatness in humility, in empowering others and in their self-giving.

I feel like there's more to say - but this is too long already. Let's see where the discussion heads.

Technorati Tags: cross, ecclesiology, image of God, imago dei, power

Community in the Image of God: Power (p. 6)

I've been toying around with this post for several days. To be honest, I'm not entirely settled on where to start; it's a huge topic that rightly deserves a book-length treatment. I've written previously on the topic here, here, here, and here, among others - it's something of a theme for me, I suppose. Part of this is because of my own story, because of my own wrestling with my very identity as a follower of Christ as a result of the abuse of power of some within specific church structures. Part of this is because of my influences, Yoder, Brueggemann, and Hauerwas being significant among those, and anyone who has read anything by authors such as those will quickly recognize that theme as one that runs through their works as well. And part of this is because of the way I read the Story - which brings us back to the topic at hand. I think that it is perfectly credible to read the Story from the perspective of the use and abuse of power, or more specifically, the delegated authority that is ours as ones in the image of God.

This theme is all over the place in scripture. You don't have to search for it - once you've become aware of it, it leaps off the page as you read, grabs your attention and refuses to release. But I want to focus on something specific, and so will resist the urge towards breadth. I suggest that the proper use of power is at the center of a Jesus-shaped ethic, and in particular, of a community formed in the image of God.

Yoder's Politics of Jesus transformed my thinking on this. Yoder makes an observation in the book that blew me away and changed the way I think about the gospel for good. He says this:

As we noted before more briefly: there is no general concept of living like Jesus in the New Testament...His formation of a small circle of disciples whom he taught through months of close contact has been claimed as a model pastoral method; his teaching of parables has been made a model of graphic communication; there have been efforts to imitate his prayer life or his forty days in the desert: but not in the New Testament.

There is but one realm in which the concept of imitation holds - but there it holds in every strand of the New Testament literature and all the more strikingly by virtue of the absence of parallels in other realms. This is the point of the concrete social meaning of the cross in relation to enmity and power. Servanthood replaces dominion; forgiveness absorbs hostility. Thus - and only thus - are we bound by New Testament thought to "be like Jesus." (pp 130-131, emphasis added)

...and I can never read the NT the same way again. Say what you will about models of atonement - and I think they are vitally important, don't get me wrong - the one that receives practically no attention in American evangelicalism today is that of example. We are deluged with ways in which we can figure out WWJD - but the one way in which the NT actually addresses the question is completely ignored. The cross is the NT ethic - the voluntary relinquishing of power in service to another.

If the image of God is about delegated authority, and if the one way in which God's authority is most clearly shown is in the voluntary embrace of the cross, then we as a community in the image of God must practice authority in the same way. To do otherwise is to deny our very identity as the people of God. Paul says it in this way:

Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death--
even death on a cross.

Technorati Tags: ecclesiology, image of God, imago dei, power, cross, theology

Recommended Reading List

I finally got around to compiling a recommended reading list. I've been working on this for a while now but couldn't get my booklist plugin to play nicely. At any rate - if you're interested, check out my must-have reading list here. I'll no doubt be adding to this as I go and at some point would like to get notes on each of these posted, but one step at a time!

Technorati Tags: books

Community in the Image of God: Dignity (p. 5)

One of the significant contextual elements of the language of the image of God in Genesis 1 is the inherent dignity of all humanity. In contrast to other ideologies that used such language only for the powerful, Genesis "democratizes" the language by declaring that all people, men and women, rich and poor, of all nationalities are image-bearers, stewards of the authority of God. Functionally, this serves as the basis for a Christian perspective on human dignity. To be human is to be a member of a royal line, one that has since fallen into dishonor but in whom can still be glimpsed at times the grandeur of its origins. We carry with us the divine task, entrusted to us at creation and still a part of our identity, even though we have done much to hinder the very ideal that we are called to represent.

As I've been suggesting, the tragedy at the heart of the biblical narrative finds humanity caught between image and curse. Image tells us that we have a royal heritage and a divine vocation; curse tells us that we have failed both. There is a word, I think, that perfectly describes our condition as a result of this tension: shame. We live under the constant intuitive sense that something has gone wrong at the very heart of who we are as people; when we are most honest, we admit that this sense of what-is-wrong is directed at ourselves - at myself - and not simply at society at large. Since the garden, we have been hiding, one from another, trying vainly to cover our shame with ever more elaborate constructs; but at the end of the day, they work little better than leaves of fig.

Buried in that narrative from Genesis 3 is, however, a small tidbit that perhaps we forget too easily. God has discovered the betrayal. God has passed judgment, in tears I believe, casting them out of the paradise for which they were intended. The divine task has been frustrated and the image tarnished. And yet, God does something that is beautiful in the middle of the chaos and pain. He covers the shame of the man and woman; clothes them and restores their dignity, such as it is. And, for certain, that restoration is incomplete - but it represents the first sacrificial act in the scriptures, and demonstrates what God's authority truly looks like in operation.

Community in the image of God is where dignity is restored. It is where honor is given, undeserved and unrequested. It is where all people are recognized as humans, as those created in God's image, even when that image is so faded and broken and tarnished that it is barely recognizable. We who are God's people are to be about the task of covering shame - not adding to it. Much of what passes for "Christian" rhetoric these days fails this task miserably. Christian community, in my reading, should never be about exposing the shame of others, but about inviting others created in God's image to find the One who can restore them to their inherent glory. It is about becoming truly human, and helping others to do the same.

I remember a session at a Youth Specialties convention a number of years ago where I heard Tony Campolo relate a story that has etched itself into my memory. He was telling of a woman whom he had encountered who was going through one of the most difficult times in her life. While I don't remember the details of her circumstances, I remember clearly the exchange that took place as he told it. Had she thought of turning to the church for help in her troubles? "Church?" was her response. "Why would I go there? I already feel like shit."

Father, please - forgive us for making people feel like shit.

Technorati Tags: ecclesiology, image of God, imago dei, dignity, theology

Community in the Image of God (p. 4)

In my last post, I suggested that the vocation of the people of Israel was to serve as a reflection of the creational intent of the imago dei. The people, however, abandoned their vocation, instead falling into idolatry and injustice - both an abrogation of the role of steward of God's authority. For the Christian, however, the story of scripture does not end at the exile.

One thing that becomes clear in a careful reading of the Gospels is the way in which Jesus presented himself and his followers as a redefinition of the people of Israel. N.T. Wright says this in his monumental work Jesus and the Victory of God:

Israel was not the chosen people for her own sake, but for the sake of the world. Part of the identity of Jesus and his followers was that they would inherit this biblical vocation: 'You are the salt of the earth, the light of the world." The Sermon on the Mount develops this theme: Jesus' followers were to reflect into the world the love of the creator god, who gives sunshine and rain to Israel and the Gentiles alike. Jesus regarded his followers as, in some sense, the eschatological people promised in the scriptures, through whom, in a manner yet to be explicated, the glory of YHWH would be revealed to the world. (p. 444)

If Jesus and his followers have taken on themselves the vocation of Israel, and if that vocation is to image God to the world as I've suggested, what might that look like? Colossians gives us a picture:

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

In Christ, then, we have the image restored in its fullness: we have the rule and authority of God, exercised in generosity and empowerment as demonstrated by the cross. And what I think is most interesting is this: the image of God, as revealed in Christ, is not just a reflection of deity. It is also a reflection of humanity perfected. Christ, the perfect imago dei, shows us what it means to be truly human.

What, then, of the church? What does this say of our vocation? Just as Jesus was the one who is truly the image of God, we also are called to bear that image. Christ's work in us is to restore that image; Paul goes on to say as much in Colossians 3, and in a number of other places besides. But we still find ourselves in tension. We bear two images: the image of the first Adam, and the image of the second, who is Christ. The church, then, is a transitional people; we are together being formed into the image of Christ, who is the perfect image of God. Next, we'll unpack what this means from a practical perspective - I think that this understanding of the renewed image has deep implications for how we live life together as followers of Jesus.

Technorati Tags: ecclesiology, image of God, imago dei, theology

Another Reason to Use Firefox...

Some time ago, I signed up for a cocomment account. The idea is fantastic - it's a service that tracks all of your comments on various folks' blogs and compiles them into a feed that you can track via a reader or publish to your own site. It's a neat service and the interface on the site is clean and functional. The only problem at the time was that it was clunky to actually track the comments - there was a bookmarklet or some such that had to be activated when posting the comment, which meant extra clicks (which I detest). It also meant that you could only track a conversation if you've commented on it. Now, I'm often guilty of being a serious lurker, so that's two strikes, and I'm not that generous when it comes to tech - it needs to work, and work well, immediately with little fuss. I put the thing on the back burner and promptly forgot about it.

Tonight, though, I discovered that the fine folks at cocomment have created a fantastic plugin for Firefox that integrates the service into the browser. Now, whenever I visit a page with comments, I can with one click subscribe to that particular comment thread and have it show up in my bloglines reader. The threads are separated by entry, so it's easy to navigate and easy to drop once a thread has died. It also supports tags, which is another plus. And there's a second feed for conversations that you want to track, even if you're not currently commenting yourself. Beautiful. Firefox triumphs again. You can download the plugin here. If you're not using Firefox yet, go! Get a good browser! You'll thank me!

Technorati Tags: cocomment, firefox