Some may consider it a bit biased, but she is one of the most creative, endearing, soft, spiritual people I know. Patty is a giver, preferring to be quiet though she can be very boisterous. Often referred to as “a-typical” when it comes to being a “pastor’s wife.” But then again, I have often been considered “a-typical” for a pastor. It is not that we are profane. It is more than we prefer to live into our humanity realizing that without Jesus we would surely devolve into something less than human.

In some ways the intersection of our stories represent the clash of vastly different experiences of life. Rather than a story of rich meets poor, it is more a story of different meets different. Too often we think these kinds of stories are different meets normal. But we have learned walking with hundreds of people in different Christian faith communities there really is no normal. The idea of normal is a pretense – one we prefer to shun.

Last year we entered a new period in our lives – the birds flew the coup. Kimberly married Craig nearly 6 years ago. Tommie and Jason will celebrate year number 1 soon. We hope we have gifted them with not the ideal marriage but the ideal friendship. Too many I have talked to about marriage discover what Bonhoeffer described about participation in a faith community – our wish dreams kill the thing. In fact, I think Bonhoeffer’s description in Life Together could well help many face the loss of innocence and the crashing to earth of the lofty ideal.

We enter human relationships not for the fulfillment of our dreams, but for what we will become. I am a better person, man, dad, husband, pastor, and friend having spent more than 2/3 of my life with my best friend. Yes, I do believe it is the grace of God at work. But I dare not diminish the very way in which that grace has been experienced in Patty.

May you be graced with just such a person in  your life.

If you have a website then you know what it means to work to have fresh content. After, it is content that drives readership. Years ago these sorts of things occurred in real-time, that is in the flesh. We took, and many still do, great care to preserve an image, note accomplishments and hope for shout outs. The rigor to maintain such a public persona, sometimes iconic, can be as wearisome as trying to keep it all up online.

What happens when our stuff wears us out and cheapens our relationships with others, our neighbors, and family? Where may we find rest. The Apostle Paul notes that his place of choice is “in Christ.” In the Gospel passage from John 12 being in Christ is recognizing when we sound pious caring for the poor when in reality our aim is something for “us.” This certainly has implications for any altruistic turn.

Here are some thoughts on a couple of the passages for this coming Sunday. What are your thoughts?

If an attempt at a consensus is to once for all nail language so we may cast this person or that person out for the “wrong” use of the word, then the attempt is really another “line in the sand.” She’s not “missional.” He’s not “missional.” If by missional we mean participation in the mission of God in the world then it should hold a wide enough swath to be used by a variety of groups. That is, unless one group thinks it has  market on the mission of God over another group.

The phrase “missio dei” has itself fallen on hard times as some trace its use in recent Christian history to a move toward an unwelcome ecumenism and a diminishing of the Gospel. Warnings abound and parallels are drawn to say with Marx that history indeed repeats itself. But, for Marx this meant one thing and for those who point to a slippery slope it means quite another. Regardless of what one says about history and its recurrence we need to recover an awareness of the mission of God in the world – the missio dei.

Recently, Callid Keefe-Perry presented at the Theology After Google Conference at Claremont School of Theology. I wonder if for some of us “missional” is the new “chortle.” Watch the video and see if in some way “missional” language has had an impact on the way in which we both experience God in Christ and how we talk about God in Christ. If we are using a new word, as an adjective or verb, to describe the mission of God are we not then doing just what Callid suggests we should be doing, in spite of those who hunt for heresies? (To get the reference for “chortle” you will have to watch the video.)

Apparently Glen Beck is now urging people to leave their churches if their leaders begin to speak about social justice. [Seriously, I'm not making this up.] To make matters… ‘er… worse, he notes that the term “social justice” is really just a code word for Communism and Nazism.

He concludes,

My hope is that someone would help Beck nuance his thoughts and rhetoric a bit, as he seems to be quickly becoming the Pat Robertson of political punditry.

One chief temptation we face is to re-calibrate the way the world works for us. We are always in need of something of a Copernican Revolution in our personal lives and the experience of our faith communities. Rather than inhabit a planet wherein all turns around us, we need revolutionaries who will remind us it does not. Habits and practices in our communities of faith help bolster us against the normal human temptation to want to be the center rather than find Jesus our center.

After listening to this podcast weigh in with your thoughts in the comment section.

So in the spirit of an earlier post I wrote, this is really a post about what might the Outpost have offered having read and watched the Preliminary Report of the GCRTF.

1. Often what we want is not what we have the fortitude to do. If we follow Dallas Willard’s distinction between words and actions, then we do what we believe. If we believe there is a need for the prophetic then we should then “be” prophetic. If we believe we need to get on our knees, then we should “be” on our knees. If we believe there are present but incomplete realities of the Kingdom of God, then we should “be” cultivating relationships with other Christians for the good of the Kingdom of God and its earthly expression until its fulfillment at Jesus’ return. Instead, we spend time in our corners playing “us” vs “them” over some of the more nuanced expressions of faith in Christ. The last stated core value may need to be our first.

2. It’s the economy… . You know how the quote rolls out. In this case it is not necessarily the economic downturn in our Country as much as what Martin Marty describes as “everdayishness.” That is, the slide toward secularity is the flattening of our priorities where one becomes just as important as another. What is hot is what get’s the attention and the resources. There is a disconnect between what we say we value and what we really value. The same holds true in our denomination. We flit from one strategy to the next, from one program to the next. We sink money into the next hopeful celebrity. We promise those who have been “faithful” to a cause the next “open” position of prominence. And we think Washington has no influence on SBC politics? We fund what we value. And, we value our structures at the expense of the prophetic. We prefer the safety that comes with control as opposed to an abandon to the Spirit.

James K.A. Smith wrote an essay in which he suggested the best way to be Reformed and live into the sovereignty of God was to be pentecostal. Too many find the rigid structure of Reformed theology safe and to neatly package God. He contended that for himself, a Reformed professor, the best expression of the conviction that God could do what he pleased was then to believe and live in a way that expected God to do just that. Even if that meant prompting an adjustment of the box in which the strictures of one theological framework puts God.

3. Is it really the Great Commission or our version of it. We note our core value is the Great Commission but we state it as “present the Gospel of Jesus Christ to every person in the world and make disciples of all the nations.” For literalists this seems a bit out of character. Generally it is enough to quote Jesus’ words, “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations.” Disciple-making evangelism requires more than a script. But, we have turned it into a script and a video. In-flesh-ment, incarnation, is not mentioned. Sure we may quibble over words and “present” could well entail incarnation, but let’s be honest. Those of us who grew up with an evanga-script coming out every year find it hard to hear anything more than just that, present what you have memorized. We’ll get around to living it one day.

This after all is the crux of the “missional” debate. Just what is it? After a conference this summer we may know by reading the manifesto. Will that make us more missional? Only if we live into mission of God as the shaping reality for the Church. More than money for missionaries and more than attaching it as an adverb to what we already do will be necessary. J.D. Greear rightly pointed out some months ago that words must accompany deeds. In other words we cannot simply live out the Gospel hoping someone “gets it.” At the same time, we cannot just speak it either.

4. Can it be we are really witnessing a State’s Rights Debate in the SBC? At heart, the back and forth between the State Conventions and the GCRTF seems quite a bit like the flap over a “Blue Ribbon Commission” and the Federal Government. We have calcified what our structure looks like, even if we have complained about a lack of nimble response. Every U.S. President promises greater efficiency and cuts to spending. But, what we all know is that we can only address discretionary spending. For that the GCRTF looks at the EC. When I type discretionary, what I mean is that our funding formulas only give a small percentage to the EC to manage. It is grand naivete to think our entities could not manage their economies better. You and I have heard plenty of stories of $500 here and $500 there. (And yes there are larger numbers out there.) These add up. Spend your budget so we can ask for more. Spend your budget or they will cut it.

So, we take it to the State Conventions. Here is a new thought for some of you who want to harangue State Execs, “Do you really think any of our entities and the EC will manage their resources differently [read, better] if they get more money?” You see this is thinking that we can bail out GM with more money but no structural changes. This is thinking banks have learned the lesson from the recent economic downturn. I’ll bet you parents don’t try that with hour children. “Here, you wasted that $10 let’s see if we can do better with $20.”

Go back and read the report. Watch the video. We compare 1950 to 2008 in every area but the amount of money we now have received annually. We want to talk about a lack of growth to correspond with the population explosion. Why no mention of the fact we generate more money today than ever in our churches and denomination. Don’t throw the inflation figures at me. Our inflated sense of the need for mega- levels the difference in the value of the dollar over time.

5. Is it really about local churches and the Kingdom of God? I read and listened and heard, “Pastors are tired of being asked for more money.” And, “Pastors we need more money.” Couch it in a retooled and released NAMB. Now, how did that go before? For my reflections, I want desperately for something to work. Not because I need the SBC to work for me and our church. But, the SBC needs me and our church and the other 39,000+ or continued fragmentation over propping up our largesse will continue to erode and prompt more and louder calls to do more and better of the same that has us right where we are. Too many have reminded us that to do the same thing over and over and expect different results is insanity. The only insanity that should mark us is the same allegations lobbed at Jesus. Living out his way in this wide world should be the only insane thing we willingly continue.

We have had such a visible foray into re-inventing ourselves that we really need to hit a good one this time. Instead, I really came away feeling what we witnessed was really more of the same. Lowering our expectations of the GCRTF by noting the problem is both spiritual and structural is to create a false dichotomy. Speak truth to power – we have spiritual structural problems or we have structurally spiritual problems. Either way to suggest we comply with little when much is needed is an insult.

Finally, when the habits of church polity – in this case denominational politics -  look like the embedded political system in which said denominational structure finds itself, it has given in to the spirit of the age. It is odd that many in our leadership stand to condemn others for this cultural move as they wage intellectual war and then participate in it all the same. Take away the entity and institution names and you could well have the makings of the political structure and its accompanying maladies we decry every day in our own Country.

How ironic that the machinery set in motion to save us from ourselves may indeed be the very structure that keeps us from living into our stated – but yet practiced – goals.

It [following a hermeneutic of charity] will also require us to spend more time with our (dysfunctional) faith families, and to own up to the fact that we’re one of “them” – that, in fact, there’s no “us” and “them,” there’s just “us.” (p.xvii.)

In a recent podcast Trevin Wax suggested evangelicalism is likely to continue to fragment. Funny, Bill J. Leonard wrote that about Southern Baptists in 1991. Nary a religious denomination escapes the impulse to divide. Just take some time to read of the various inter-Nicene conflicts.

Philip Clayton writes in the Introduction to his book, Transforming Christian Theology: For Church and Society,

The second step in my transformation is to walk the talk, which means that I must also change how I communicate my reflections on Christian belief and identity. I can no longer publish theology books that are written primarily for specialists. (p.6)

Interestingly this is what Smith refers to when he contends he and others must offer “philosophical reflection in the service of faithful discipleship.” (p.xiv) Smith and Clayton come from very different places on the theological spectrum who both note the necessity for things to change. Insider conversations on important subjects offer little to a changing religious/spiritual landscape.

Tripp Fuller, Philip Clayton and others are hosting, “Theology After Google.” Already some have set aside those attending as outside of those dysfunctional faith communities Smith referenced. But, in an attempt to learn from one another and press one another further in what it means to follow Jesus in the changing environs of today’s world, maybe we should stop long enough to listen. I am. In fact, I am working on a presentation on just how we may get theological education out of the building without leaving the building. I am working on “Ivory Tower(s) Go Viral: Theological Education On Demand.”

Whatever place you find yourself on the theological spectrum, learning and leading are a must. Engaging in ongoing learning communities fueled by technological advances may save seminaries and their faculty from future extinction if theological education does (not) leave the building.

We are excited. I am going to be getting used to the idea of a new “title.” Sometime in late September the “future” part will drop off and it will be real. Nathan is thinking his birthday would be a good one. Others are lining up with their hoped for date. Boy or girl it does not matter to Patty and me. Healthy is our hope.

So, for now, you may call me “future” grandpa.

On a side note, we are glad we avoided the latest threat of snow. One more opportunity on the horizon late Sunday. Here’s to hoping for more sun than snow in March.