glocalnet t-lounge

Christian Worldview

Last night, I had a blast with our interns. We were talking about discipleship. One of the big omissions of that discussion is generally worldview and discipleship. We got into some intensive debate and conversation about what is a Christian worldview. It left me with a lot of thoughts. "Handsome Richie" from Korea helped us understand worldview was more the combination of who you were as a person--seeing life from that. One from "Rooster Donnie" who debated it wasn’t possible to have a "Christian" worldview--it was just worldview and we all come at it from personal positions. One from "Missionary Paul" who saw it as a grouping system with one big umbrella making up several positions. Then, there was our Ph.D. "Dr. Bob" who took us on a limited historical and personal journey of what it is.

Combine all this with what I’m doing this year in my personal worship, and I think just from the first 4 days of the year it’s going to be an exciting year. I’m ready for something different. Since ’92, I’ve been reading through the Bible with a devotional and journal, and it’s been awesome, but I've gotten somewhat bored. So, this year I’m doing something very, very different. I found this 65- year-old book that is only the words of Jesus--the red letters. I start, as always, in my journal putting down what’s going on and what I sense God is doing. I then read only one Jesus story or saying, not my usual 5 or 6 chapters. Then, I reflect on it and ask what does this mean to me and what do I do with it. I then read a devotional by Peterson called "A year with Jesus." This year, I have begun as a devotional N.T. Wright’s "Jesus and Victory of God" so I read a few pages out of that. Finally, I’m also reading as a devotional David Bosch’s "Transforming Mission." It takes me an hour at least to get all this done.

Why this approach? I want to discover Jesus more and deeper than I’ve ever known Him. I want the personal reflection of who He is from His Words, combined with a theologian about who He is, and a missiologist about what implications that has for us. In just the first few days, I’ve discovered you can’t do this without serious world view issues being brought up--from the political world Jesus found Himself in, to the ethical, moral, spiritual, and transformation implications of His message.

In every existing institution of society, in his day, Jesus was a reject, yet his message was so powerful that it didn’t matter. Acceptance, endorsement, and affirmation would have to come from His Father, and His Father alone. It wouldn’t come from anywhere else. Even His own followers didn’t get it. Because we are this side of the cross, we think we get it, but do we? There are things they heard Him say and do that impacted their understanding in ways we can’t even imagine. They lived it beyond us. Yet, without the New Testament, what did He say and what did they see that impacted them in that first century so much. How was it those first Christians lived that was so appealing and powerful that it set the stage for a global and enduring Jesus Movement?

We have dissected the cross and it’s implications. I’m ready to dissect the life of Jesus. What is there beyond moral and ethical teachings? I believe this may be the greatest unexplored terrain with the greatest keys for both living and sharing the gospel. Wright said, "The reformers had very thorough answers to the question ‘why did Jesus die?;’ they did not have nearly such good answers to the question ‘why did Jesus live?’ Their successors to this day have not often done any better. But the question will not go away." Bosch writes, the early church didn’t overthrow Rome, but they lived a "gentle" life. It was as if they knew something was more powerful than themselves. They changed Rome not by armies or legislation but by living it. It leads to his definition of church, "A community of people, who in the face of tribulations they encounter, keep their eyes steadfastly on the reign of God by praying for its coming, by being its disciples, by proclaiming its presence, by working for peace and justice in the midst of hatred and oppression, and by looking and working toward God’s liberating future."

The world is what it is for good and bad. A Christian Worldview has to be more than a Biblical map of do’s and don’t or all you have is religion, a law document, or a factory. It has to be more than a theology or God or it is merely and explanation to a system of understanding. Early Christians didn’t have the Bible to serve as that map. It has to be a life laid across the world seeing as Bobby Vaugh said, ". . . the world through blood stained glasses." But it can’t be limited only to blood atonement in death. It has to engage all of life in the moment we find ourselves. I see it--for now (and it may not be long, I’m learning a lot)--as a prism and the more I know, understand, love, and live the life of Jesus, the more I see things from His perspective of what hope is. It is a constantly growing and morphing view of the world from God’s perspective that changes how I live and what I do and who I see myself as, in light of Jesus. I should be a never-ending hope dispenser! I think--it may be possible--we will not be able to define "Christian Worldview." Instead, it will be us infected by the gospel and living that out and responding to life from the perspective of the moment in which we find ourselves. That would be too simple. What think ye?

I Wrote The First Page Today!

I’m writing a book on a particular dimension of starting churches. For the past month, I’ve been gathering resources, studying, reading, and examining what we’ve done at NorthWood, and other places. I have four months to get this sucker done with tons of lectures, studies, etc. before me—please pray for me! Twenty years ago when I started NorthWood, it was more of a denominational approach. Fortunately, a year into our plant, I stumbled on to Rick Warren who was a part of a whole new way of me seeing the church. Then the Purpose-Driven Model became the "alternative." It was like there was a new way to start churches and that was it! Not anymore. There as so, so, so, so many ways to start churches--so many kinds of churches--each promising to be the messiah to the church in the West. Frankly, the greatest contribution Rick Warren gave to church planting was his ability to open the door to new ways of starting churches so that multiple models would emerge--which has happened, not his Purpose-Driven model. Sometimes it may seem like a curse to a young guy figuring out which format, model, yada, yada, yada to use, but it’s really a blessing.

I was going through a notebook I used in 1994 when I taught my first church planting conference called "Planting High Yield Churches--half of it I threw away today! Two things I started with. First, new churches reach lost people better than established churches so we should start churches to reach lost people. The first half of that sentence is true. The second half is only partially true. I used to believe if I could just get them converted it was a done deal. I’ve learned that is not true. The second thing was learning to think. There were 3 questions you should ask, and did you think you’d always be relevant and be able to design your church where you are opposed to mimicking someone else. I then came up with these principles of design--most are still relevant. Some are not.

Bottom line, nothing has changed more, or is in more of a state of flux, than church planting. Today, it is more crucial than ever to learn to think critically, read broadly, evaluate carefully, study others, and travel extensively if you have any hope of doing something that will last (which is the point after all--as Jesus said, "fruit that remains"). Church planting, in some instances, has become a herd mentality for specific "parties" or "models" within the broader church. I’m convinced the people who have done, and will do it best, will create their own model, having learned from others. We need a sort of "best practices" approach--lessons that apply to all, but then the freedom to do specifically what God calls us to.

Another thing to think about. So, so much emphasis on starting a church, but the reality is that’s only a 2 to 3-year process. How does what we teach enable someone, not just to start a church, but to "complete" it? Maybe we should change the term to "church finisher" rather than "church starter!" The goal cannot be to inspire lots of people to start churches. The measure cannot be the hype, the conference, the launch, but the measure is the church ten years after it is planted. If that were the case, I promise you, it would change how most people teach and how we plant churches.