Defining (and Defending?) Cultural Relevance

I graduated from Winebrenner Theological Seminary in 1999. Over the past ten years, a cornerstone of my philosophy of ministry has been a high level of commitment to a church that embraces the notion of being "culturally relevant." This post is not my announcement that I now dismiss those notions as incorrect; but I will openly admit that I've embraced many ideas and approaches in the name of cultural relevance without first fully thinking through the decision.

From my vantage point, two principles are non-negotiable:

• Jesus commands us to share the message of his life, death, and resurrection (Mt. 28:18-20).
• Expanding upon that idea, Paul demonstrates how important it is to identify with those groups trying to be reached (1 Cor. 9:19-23).

Beyond these two imperatives, things begin to get dicey. Nowhere does Jesus say "Do whatever it takes to reach everyone"; nor does Paul write "become like a homosexaul to win the homosexuals..." So, it appears as though it is necessary to draw a line about what those actual limits are.

This conversation could go in a dozen different directions, but I'm going to focus on just one element of the equation: technology. For those who read the previous thread (The Role of Technology in the Church), you know this is something that I have multiple opions about. But I will try my best to simplify and clarify my concerns.

The metaphor that has been very helpful to me invokes the idea of environmental ecology (there is actually a field of study called "media ecology."). Imagine for a moment a virgin forest that has never encountered a specific form of termites. Once the invasive species is introduced, the forest is no longer the old forest plus the termites - it is an entirely new habitat. If you can see the analogy, that is all I am suggesting when I say I believe that technology is not morally neutral. Without trying to overstate my point, by its mere introduction new technologies alter our very form of existence. How can they therefore be "morally neutral"? If you genuinely believe that God created the computer, then maybe you can build a case, but if you believe that computer technology was created by man (using his God-given free-will), then my points remain part of the discussion.

So...when discussing cultural relevance, these are things I am not suggesting:

• that churches shouldn't use PowerPoint
• that churches shouldn't have websites
• that pastors shouldn't blog

But, what I am suggesting is that we too often embrace what's new without first asking what we are giving away as the trade-off. The minute we embrace something for no other reason than it exists we are surrendering ourselves to our cultural - that is definitely NOT being culturally relevant in a biblical sense.

Would Jesus Twitter? Would Paul have a blog? Before you quickly reply "Of course! How can you even ask those questions?" I would encourage you to seriously consider the questions further.

The Role of Technology in the Church

Over the past week I've been exchanging emails with one of the pastors at our church. He delivered a sermon last week that prompted a variety of thoughts. Since things have been slow here lately, I thought I would post our conversation. The emails below are somewhat lengthy, but to edit them would eliminate some of the key insights of the conversation.

While many topics are explored, the main focus of the conversation addresses the role of technology within a Christian context.

Brent

- - - -

Pastor D-,

Great sermon on Sunday.

Anytime that it prompts me to sit down and type out a few reactions it has cleary had an impact on my thinking. Two thoughts... First, I was pondering your statement (my paraphrase) that consumerism is an enemy of the church. I agree. But I sometimes wonder if we (as the Church) are taking aim at the right target. From my experience and research, a consumer culture is a by-product of a technologically-driven culture. The invention of the standardized clock, the industrial revolution, the assembly line, etc. are all contributing factors to consumerism. Jumping to 21st century inventions, the cell phone, internet, iPod, etc., are products of this technologically driven culture. So...we take aim at consumerism (the effect) but we never call out the use of technological innovation (the cause). Sometimes it strikes me as a bait and switch technique. We (the Church, not just our church) say "don't be driven by consumption" but never hit the heart of the issue - the over-reliance on technological innovation. I've followed the trail of technology in the name of "cultural relevance" - and many things that I've probably done in the past I now would find suspect. Yes, this could mean that our Blackberries and Twitter accounts are the real culprits. To use strong language, the enemy may be technology not consumerism.

Second, and related, you said about speed being the enemy of empathy. Again, we promote all our ministries on the latest technology without apology, BUT doesn't this promote the very speed you are attacking? Doesn't the fact that my students expect instantaneous replies to their emails contribute to their inability to recognize that I may have other priorities beyond them? Email and cell phones invite immediacy. Unless I directly address these items the users never recognize that they are being driven by the technology rather than the other way around. If this makes any sense, we can talk further. If this just sounds like crazy-talk, so be it. Oh yes, I recognize the irony that I am emailing you this as opposed to talking face to face.Enjoy your week.

Brent

- - - - -

Brent,

Thanks so much for the feedback.

I love insightful and well-reasoned responses to sermons that goes beyond "great sermon" or "you're an idiot" (the two most common bits of feedback that I receive!)

That being said - I disagree with your conclusions :)

I agree that technology has it's downsides and certainly can contribute to the problems that you mentioned below (fueling consumerism and speeding the pace of life). However, I would stop short of saying that technology is a root problem.

I still see technology as a morally neutral tool that has always been around and will always be around in various stages and manifestations. It can be used for great good and great harm - the root of the issue is still the human heart. If the heart comes to a situation or circumstance with the attitude what can I give, who can I love, how can I serve vs. what can I take or what's in it for me, no amount of technology can either prevent that from happening or cause that to happen. It's a heart issue.

So I think focusing on technology as the problem actually takes us away from the root issue which is the shaping and formation of the heart into Christlikeness. For some technology may be a contributing problem to the shaping of the heart as it can feed addictions, distract from times of solitude, etc. But I wouldn't call it the problem that we should be focusing on. (In the same way I wouldn't call "guns" the leading problem in the Columbine shooting. The leading problem was the hearts of the kids who opened fire on their classmates. If guns weren't available their fallen hearts would have found another way to destroy people. Guns can be used for great good [protecting citizens, hunting for food, etc.] or, in this case, great harm. But ultimately guns aren't the main problem.)

Thinking through the New Testament lens for a second - Paul was a fast-paced, get-it-done, kind of guy. I think he used whatever technology was at his disposal to get the gospel out to lost people. He used letters, and messengers, and various means of travel, to spread the gospel. And although there is no way to support this biblically - I have a hunch that Paul would have used email and video and and whatever other technology was available to maintain communication with his church plants and continue to encourage believers all over the region where his churches were located.

I have a hard time demonizing technology because I know that a lot of Christians did the same thing when the printing press was invented, and that became the very technology that allowed the scriptures to be put into the hands of common people.So my strong belief is that technology can and should be used by whatever means necessary to spread the gospel and encourage the saints. The key to not being consumed by consumerism and not falling victim to the fast pace of life in my opinion is still heart transformation above all.I'm certainly open to continuing the conversation - but just wanted to get my perspective on the table as we continue to talk.Again - thanks for the great push back and look forward to more. God bless.

Pastor D-

- - - - -

Pastor D-,

I also enjoy a good, thoughtful conversation.

I agree with much of your assessment of Paul. Acts 17:16-34 illustrates how engaged he was with the contemporary culture. And he definitely used a primary communication tool of his day – letter writing – to convey his message. Paul may have been willing to use email and video, but I can’t believe he would have done it unreflectively. I read his notion of taking every thought captive for Christ as an indication that we must thoughtfully engage culture and not just accept something because it exists.

I also agree that while the printing press was demonized when it was first invented, it has created many new opportunities for spreading the message of Jesus.

To echo you, “That being said – I disagree with many of your conclusions.”

Although it may appear as though I am anti-technology, that is not the case at all. I’ll focus my primary concerns into two major categories.

First, I am deeply concerned about the unreflective use of technology. Too often I hear the question “How can I use this new technology?” before hearing that same person ask “Should I use this new technology?” Too often I have seen the Church embrace a new technology in the name of cultural relevance. Just to focus upon the emerging internet technologies, I am thinking of Facebook/MySpace, Twitter, Blackberries, etc. Yes, does that provide an opportunity to reach a potentially unreached audience, absolutely. But where are the voices asking should we be using these resources? What about the trade-off? Back to your sermon on Sunday – to suggest that we should slow down in the name of empathy but not call out the specific technologies that cause us to speed up stops short of addressing the whole issue.

My second, and probably great, concern explores the question who/what controls who/what? Just because something is created by a technology guru doesn’t mean that it should be used. Just because Twitter is available doesn’t mean that it should be utilized. While I believe that all truth is God’s truth and creation can be redeemed by the Creator, just because a new technology emerges doesn’t mean that it should be embraced. I can say more on this, but I’ll stop there.

But, perhaps the part of your email that I find most troubling is the notion that technology is morally neutral. On that point, I could not disagree more emphatically. You use the example of Columbine. Perhaps the students would have found a way to commit their evil deeds using another form of attack. But, how many other forms of attack are idolized through TV, movies, and video games? Jared Diamond in Guns, Germs and Steel talks about how the invention of the gun changed the form, speed, and entire nature of cultures. It wasn’t just the former cultures plus guns – entirely new cultures emerged. The same can be said for computers, TV, radio, etc. Our culture today is not just 1980 plus the internet. We are living in an entirely new culture. Technology is not just about how we use it – once it enters the culture it changes the nature of that culture. Another example – so many men struggle with pornography. I do not believe that every man who views porn on his computer would have also gone to the bookstore and took a sneak peek at those same types of magazines. The invention of the internet has completely changed the nature of the discussion. To suggest that technologies are morally neutral is as dangerous of a proposition as a pastor could make (within the context of our discussion – I am not suggesting this is the most looming evil in all creation). I’m not trying to overstate this issue – but I firmly believe what I just wrote.

A few questions that I think about often:
What does it mean to be human? How does technology help or hinder our ability to be human? What are the trade-offs involved in using a new technology? Are convenience and efficiency alone enough to justify embracing a new technology?

One final thought (and you may have done this before) – ask your staff to take a 24 – 48 hour technology fast and watch the reactions you receive. If there are any lingering doubts about who controls who, I think that exercise may confirm my earlier comments.

Thanks for the reply – I’ve been thinking about your email over the past few days. I take your comments and insights seriously and appreciate your willingness to engage in the conversation.

Have a good weekend.

Brent

The Forgotten Ways of Jesus

Fran wrote a book. You should buy it!

A Combination Creed

For some time we've liked the idea of occasionally using a creed in our worship gatherings. One struggle has been that the historic creeds are very limited in what they express. They were written at a time the church was defending against particular heresies related to the nature of God and the person of Jesus. They say GREAT things, but they say little about the way of seeing and living that Jesus worked so hard to impart to us. So I decided to try incorporating some of Brian McLaren's Jesus Creed into some of the form and language of the historic creeds. I just thought you guys might like to see it. I think we'll try using it at LifeSpring-- the timing seems right as many of us in the church try to recover the Way of Jesus along with the historic orthodoxy we still hold to.

A Creed for those on the Way
We believe in God, the Father,
Maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God—
God from God, light from light, true God from true God,
begotten, not made, one in essence with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven,
was born of the Virgin Mary and became truly human.

We have confidence in this Jesus
…who healed the sick and even raised the dead;

…who cast out evil powers and confronted corrupt leaders;

…who cleansed the temple, favored the poor,
turned water into wine, and calmed the seas;

We have confidence in this Jesus
…who taught with words and signs meant to awaken us,
on hillsides, from boats, in the temple, in homes, at parties,
along the road, on beaches, by day and by night;

…who taught us the way of love for God, for neighbor,
for stranger and for enemy, for outcast and for foreigner;

…who called disciples, led them, washed their feet,
gave them new names and new purpose,
called them his friends, taught them to pray,
and sent them out to proclaim the good news of the Kingdom.

We have confidence in this Jesus
…who loved, rejoiced, wept, sang, and feasted.

And so we seek to let our hearts be awakened,
to abide in him as a branch in a vine, and to follow him and live by his example.
We have not seen him, but we love him, and to know him is to know the true and living God.

For our sake he was crucified, died, and was buried.
On the third day he rose again as the Scriptures had foretold.
He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his Kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, who makes known the Father’s presence to us,
and who works to bring forth the new creation within us.
He proceeds from the Father and the Son,
and with the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.

We believe in one holy community of Jesus, his body,
marked by baptism and forgiven of our sins.
We are his hands and feet in the world.
We look for the resurrection of the dead, and for the day when all fears will flee,
all pain will fade away, and all tears will be wiped from our eyes
as we rise into the goodness and wholeness and life which will never end.
Amen.

Two Complementary Leadership Cultures

Not long ago, when I was still a member of the Eastern Region's Renewal Commission, I was speaking to one of our "Pastors" about something that was potentially very important to his congregation. When I described an idea I was considering, he asked, "Can I run this by my elders?"

His question hit me like a knee to the groin.

I understand that the question is extremely reasonable. Under the circumstances, it is the question that one would expect a conscientious CGGC Pastor to ask. The moment was so dramatic for me because it was at that instant that I realized that my theology of the church has changed so radically that his question is no longer the question I would ask.

I'm one of those "missional" guys and I owe the transformation in my understanding of the church to my participation in that movement.

I'm big into Reggie McNeal's, The Present Future and his, Missional Renaissance. I am huuuuugely into Michael Frost and Alan Hirsch's, The Shaping of Things to Come and Hirsch's, The Forgotten Ways because I see, in their understanding of the church, a vision that is more consistent with the New Testament than what I see elsewhere.

I buy into what McNeal now calls "A. D. 30 Leadership" which bears a strong similarity to Frost and Hirsch's APEST (Apostle, Prophet, Evangelist, Shepherd and Teacher) model of leadership.

It was when I was speaking to my pastor friend that I realized how radically the missional vision of church leadership articulated by McNeal, Frost and Hirsch (and there are others) has changed me.

It has changed me so thoroughly that if someone from Renewal comes to me with an important idea for the congregation, I could not ask, Can I run this by my elders? but I would ask, Can I run it by my Apostles and Prophets?

----------------------------------

Even more recently, though, I have come to understand that, in the New Testament, there were two distinct cultures of leadership existing side by side and that both of them were--ARE TODAY--necessary.

One of the leadership cultures, the one that the Christendom Church has adopted to the sometimes violent exclusion of the other, is "Positional Leadership."

Positional leadership has deep roots in the New Testament. This biblical way of leading is through people who are appointed to positions of authority.

The term Elder describes one of those positions of authority. The term Deacon describes another. The term 'overseer' (Greek, episcopos) is another of the early church leadership terms that was a part of this biblical culture of Positional Leadership.

There are, as everyone who has studied the Doctrine of the Church knows, three models of polity in the Christendom view of the church: the Episcopal, the Presbyterial and the Congregational. As diverse as they are, those three models of church organization all have one thing in common: They understand positional leadership to be primary in the church.

The truth is, however that, while Positional Leadership has deep roots in the New Testament, it doesn't have the deepest roots.

Jesus did not call and mentor positional leaders. He didn't disciple the Twelve Elders or the Twelve Overseers or the Twelve Deacons. He did not prepare the Kingdom for positional leadership.

When Jesus prepared leaders, He did so from a different paradigm of leadership. Jesus designated the twelve men He called and mentored, "Apostles." (We'd do Him better justice to say that He called them "Sent Ones.") In addition to discipling twelve men to be Apostles, He spoke frequently about Prophets as a part of the Kingdom. Jesus understood the role of prophecy as being so central in the Kingdom that even the Sermon on the Mount contains instruction on how to detect a false prophet and it warns about what will happen to prophets who speak in His Name but do not do the Father's will.

The importance of the type of leader Jesus discipled is highlighted in the Book of Acts as well as in Ephesians in which Paul says that the church is built on the foundation of the Apostles and the Prophets and in which he describes the five leadership Spiritual Gifts as being those of Apostle, Prophet, Evangelist, Shepherd and Teacher.

I have called the first leadership type"Positional." What to call the second? Well, biblically from the Greek, the best term would be "charismatic," but, as we know, that term is already taken. It denotes something significantly different that what I'm referring to. So, I'll call it "Gift-Empowered Leadership."

Here's what I've noticed about the two distinct leadership cultures:

1. Both of these leadership cultures are clearly deeply rooted in the New Testament.

2. Both of these leadership cultures are essential to leadership in the Church as the New Testament envisions it.

3. The two leadership cultures are intended to be complementary. And,

4. These two leadership cultures , in practice, mix like oil and water.

In all but the first few of the twenty centuries of church history the Positional Leadership Culture has dominated and all but negated the Gift-Empowered Leadeship Culture. Yet, the Word teaches that "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," Christ will continue to give His church Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Shepherd and Teachers. (Ephesians 4:7-13)

The New Testament reality is that little that is revolutionary was accomplished through the leadership of Elders and Deacons. The human instruments used by the Spirit to turn the world upside down and reach it with the Gospel were not the people in Positional Leadership, they were the Apostles and Prophets and Evangelists--Gift-Empowered leaders.

In my entries on this blog in the past, I have often claimed that the church today is at a historic crossroads. One reason this time is so critical is that, for the first time in more than a thousand years, an attack against Positional Leadership as the dominant leadership model in the Church is taking place.

"Attack?" Strong language.

But, yes, I think so.

People today who call themselves 'missional' have discovered that there was leadership in the New Testament other than Positional Leadership. Many missional people have begun what can be understood as a war against what they see as a very tired, old, and unbiblical leadership culture.

I am sympathic with my missional friends' desire to set as the dominance of the Positional Leadership Culture, but not as much as I once was.

I agree that with the missional gang that Gift-Empowered Leadership has deeper roots in the New Testament than Positional Leadership. With them, I am convinced that the early church reached the world through the Gift-Empowered Leadership Culture and not Positional Leadership. However, I also believe that Positional Leadership is biblical and in still important.

The sad truth is that many missional people don't treat the Positional Leadership Culture with any greater respect than the Christendom gang treats its Apostles and Prophets. And, that is wrong.

Those who seek the dominance of either Gift-Empowered or Positional Leadership are wrong.

I believe that the early church didn't promote the dominance of either leadership culture but that it carefully fostered balance between the two cultures.

For about a year I've been trying to make APEST leadership work in my own ministry setting and it's beginning to happen. I'm excited about it.

But the lesson I have learned most recently is that people who are Gift-Empowered and those whose leadership calling is Positional don't, in their human nature, get along easily.

I'm not sure that my description of what makes up the tension between the two is entirely accurate but this is what I'm seeing: Positional Leaders see Apostles, Prophets and Evangelists as being, perhaps, too dramatic, too caught up in passions of the moment, too hot one moment and cold the next. Gift-Empowered Leaders, especially the APEs regard Positional Leaders as staid and moderate, lacking enthusiasm and spirituality.

The Gift-Empowered distrust those who are Positional because they appear lukewarm. Positional Leaders fear that the Gift-Empowered might just possibly be insane. (I get that all the time.)

I am convinced that both cultures of leadership are of the Lord and that both are critical to Spirit-led ministry, that neither culture can be permitted to dominate the other and that balance between the two ways of leading must constantly be cultivated.

I am also convinced that it will be impossible for the two cultures to co-exist unless we put into practice the love described in 1 Corinthians 13. "Love is patient, love is kind, it does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud, it is not rude, it is not self-seeking..."

Two different paradigms of leadership empowered by the Lord, two distinctly different models, two sets of leadership callings exist that are, by nature, so dissimilar that they can easily and naturally, from a human perspective, oppose each other.

They always will oppose each other if the people who possess those callings don't understand that there are people called to lead in the church in a way that seems at odds with their own calling.

Acts 6:1-7 details the creation of the Positional Leadership model by the first practitioners of Gift-Empowered Leadership.

The Apostles were confronted with the issue of the neglect of Greek-speaking widows in the daily distribution of food. They understood that if they were to be true to their callings, they could not deal with that problem. For them to feed even these starving widows would be to exist outside the mandate passed on to them by the Lord's Great Commission. Yet, to allow these sisters to starve could not have possibly pleased the Lord.

So they instructed the congregation to select seven men to fill positions, positions in which they had would have authority to feed those widows. The Apostles' reasoning is clearly stated. "It would not be right for us to leave the ministry of the word to wait on tables...We will devote ourselves to prayer and the ministry of the Word."

From the beginning, Gift-Empowered Leadership and Positional Leadership were intended to complement each other.

What is the result of our lack of understanding that there are two systems of leadership in the church that are to complement each other?

We simply do not empower APEST people to be who they are in their callings. We demand that they wait on tables. We prevent them from devoting themselves to prayer and the ministry of the word.

And, we take people who have a calling to organize and oversee the feeding widows and the care for the poor--essential minstries in the Body of Christ--and confuse them with issues of spirituality that may well be separate from what the Spirit has empowered them to do.

One way to understand the Pastor-focused leadership culture that the CGGC has adopted in recent decades is that it is an ill-conceived attempt to force individual leaders into a Positional Leadership role that also demands that they be Gift-Empowered.

The role of 'Pastor' fits no one naturally. The notion of a 'Pastor' is so foreign to the New Testament that there is no Greek word for it. Those who find it a fairly comfortable fit are almost exclusively those with the Gift-Empowered calling to be a Shepherd. Hence we have fallen into a Shepherd Dominated Leadership culture which has no precedent in Scripture.

In the West, the Church is losing its culture.

One reason for that is that we have a confused and conflicted leadership community.

The time has come for us to allow those who are Gift-Empowered to live within their empowerment and those who are called to positional leadership to fill those positions.

Talk about needing repentance...

On Being (and Staying) Anonymous

What does it mean to be anonymous?

Here’s a quick tour through a few biblical, cultural, and philosophical/theological perspectives.

From a biblical perspective:
There are multiple times throughout the ministry of Jesus where he encourages his followers to keep silent about his true identity. In some ways it seems as though Jesus wanted one season of his life to remain hidden from the masses. Of course, we know how the story ends – his true identity is revealed and rest, as they say, is history.

From a cultural perspective:
Within some non-Western societies, the idea that one can have ownership of words is unknown. For example, when discussing plagiarism, the whole notion of a person “owning” certain words or phrases is unknown in various cultures.

From a philosophical/theological perspective:
St. Augustine is attributed with the notion that “all truth is God’s truth” regardless of where it emerges.

Why am I bringing these items into this blog’s conversation? For those who have been part of this blog since it’s inception, it probably comes as no surprise that I will use the departure of A. Amos Love as a chance to discuss the notion of anonymous posting.

I have read the “management’s” reasoning about the anonymous posting policy and it continues to trouble me for several reasons.

First, the idea of emerging suggests that everyone is moving in some direction. But, we all have different starting points. Perhaps there are some people who genuinely believe that they cannot provide their name. If this blog is intended as a safe forum for discussion, what if there is no where else they can go? Suggesting that everyone should at least be able to provide a name, in my opinion, stifles the honesty that may provided. If someone is still thinking through the ideas here – ideas that have openly been called heretical – shouldn’t a little anonymity be allowed and welcome?

Second, how much do we really know from those who have posted names? With the exception of Bill, Brian, Fran, and Dan H., I have not met any other regular posters face-to-face (I apologize if I missed someone), nor have they met me. Why draw the line at a name? Why not a picture? Do we really know “where people are coming from” by the little that is listed online?

I am NOT suggesting full disclosure. I think some things should remain hidden. I have no problem with the anonymity that exists on this blog. Sometimes I think the efforts to disclose our identities is an effort to make the internet something it is incapable of being.

Third, and perhaps most important, what about those who keep their ideas “anonymous” within their congregations? They may post here to explore and think through ideas but when in the presence of real people, they fear to share what they write here. Perhaps they know full-well that their leadership will never read their posts and therefore write things that they would never say in person. That is where a much dire trouble lies – not in the fact that some people post ideas without signing a name.

Feel free to disagree [as long as you sign your name!!]

I’ll share my own identity while I try to protect the identity of others. If anyone wants further information about me, follow my profile for a picture and further information on my employer’s website.

Grass Roots Podcast - Episode 20 - CGGC Leadership Initiative

I have spent the last five years in the CGGC like a guy who stumbled upon a sleeping bear in the woods. I froze and have kept my eye on the bear, for the bear, if it notices me, could devour me. Then I started backing away slowly. I have not participated much regionally or nationally, though I've been told by both regional and national directors that I am welcome and would be appreciated at both levels.

Over the past five years, I have become a fan of Reggie McNeal, a former southern baptist denom official in South Carolina, who I believe understands the exact change that the North American church needs to make and who articulates it in a way that churches at large can get a handle.

So while attending IMPACT as a breakout leader (teaching Reggie McNeal's three shifts for the church), I overheard that Reggie was coming out to consult. Rather than a desire to be helpful denominationally, I selfishly have sought opportunities to sit in the same room as Reggie (and I wasn't disappointed). So I asked if I could sit in and was warmly welcomed.

The results caused me emotional confusion. I left hopeful, passionate in fact about the idea of participating in this leadership initiative, hopeful that this could be a prescription for renewal in this denom that I do truly love. Confused, because I've been wary of the bear, pulling me away from what is most important for me -- local ministry.

My fear is that the people who need to be involved in this initiative are also people who have stumbled across the bear and who also have been slowly backing away. I hope these are the people who listen to our podcasts. These (you) are all people who I have found to be intelligent and reflective and I would love to have a conversation with you about the pros and cons of this initiative. But since I can't, I did have a conversation with Lance Finley, Fran Leeman, and Bill Sloat about it. I thought the conversation was helpful. I think it might be helpful to you to listen to it and get some feel for this initiative, which Lance incredibly optimistically would like to roll out in January.

I am not an official representative of this leadership initiative. I'm just a pastor who loves our denom and who heard something that sounds hopeful coming around the bend. This recorded conversation was a frank and honest evaluation of what we know so far.

We invite your feedback.

Download: Podcast - GrassRoots - Episode 20 - CGGC Leadership Initiative

I made a compressed version that plays about 20 minutes shorter. It is the same as the other, just plays faster.

Download: Podcast - GrassRoots - Episode 20 - CGGC Leadership Initiative Compressed