The Danger of Playing it Safe

The following post is a sermon I recently preached which was adapted from Glenn McDonald's, The Disciple Making Church. This has been a very helpful text for me in navigating the difficult waters of a ministering to a church in transition...

Most of us are aware of the story of Flight 93 on September 11, 2001. Of the planes that were hijacked, this one would not be used to crash into a building – not because it wasn’t intended to. The plane crashed in a field in Pennsylvania, well short of its assumed target.

The events surrounding that day have become such an overused tagline for political rhetoric that it is easy to ignore or gloss over what really took place. This was not a Tom Clancy novel or a Steven Spielberg/Tom Hanks war movie. The individuals on this airplane were not soldiers, secret agents or even security guards. They were just regular people who found what their plane was going to be used for. In the midst of a culture of death, they chose to live the life they had left.

There were several phone calls made from the plane that day by passengers who did not know what was going to happen. The passengers were finding out from terrified family on the ground what was going on with other planes that morning. It was becoming apparent that they were a part of something very ugly and very real and seemingly inescapable. That was when probably the most gripping statement was made.

Tom Burnett, on the phone with his wife Deena said, “A group of us is going to do something.”…

Jesus is in Jerusalem, not long before the end of his life on earth. He has been speaking out against religious people who are more concerned with right doctrine than they are with living lives of fullness – lives of mercy, compassion, etc.

The disciples began asking Jesus about the Kingdom – and about his eventual claiming of everything. What were the expectations of life in this Kingdom?

And so Jesus talks to them in stories and parables meant to describe how they should or should not live as disciples of Jesus after his resurrection (which is where we find ourselves today)

Matthew 25:14-25

14 "Again, it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants and entrusted his property to them. 15 To one he gave five talents of money, to another two talents, and to another one talent, each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. 16 The man who had received the five talents went at once and put his money to work and gained five more. 17 So also, the one with the two talents gained two more. 18 But the man who had received the one talent went off, dug a hole in the ground and hid his master's money.

19 "After a long time the master of those servants returned and settled accounts with them. 20 The man who had received the five talents brought the other five. 'Master,' he said, 'you entrusted me with five talents. See, I have gained five more.'

21 "His master replied, 'Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master's happiness!'

22 "The man with the two talents also came. 'Master,' he said, 'you entrusted me with two talents; see, I have gained two more.'

23 "His master replied, 'Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master's happiness!'

24 "Then the man who had received the one talent came. 'Master,' he said, 'I knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not scattered seed. 25 So I was afraid and went out and hid your talent in the ground. See, here is what belongs to you.'

The cautious man, the one who hid the bag of money, was playing it safe. He didn’t risk doing something that might lose the master’s money. Of course it did nothing to increase, but he avoided a loss…which is a gain in some respects, right? He also avoided the dangerous slippery slope.

What if he’d invested the money and the bank had gone under? Remember this is quite a bit before the invention of the FDIC. What if he’d invested, done well and developed a liking for high-risk/high-return speculation? Couldn’t that be considered gambling? And what if he liked it so much that it led to gambling? Or what if he put the money to work and someone tricked him out of it? What if he made a bad decision…Enron?

There were no guarantees – unless you held firmly to what you’d been given. The only guarantee was to not risk anything by attempting anything without explicit instructions to do so.

And when the day comes, you can imagine this guy nervously expecting – or maybe hoping – that the master will appreciate his faithfulness to what was originally entrusted to him. He completely preserved what was originally received. This wasn’t jus the same amount of money, it was the SAME MONEY!

And we know the rest of the story…

Matthew 25:26-30

26 "His master replied, 'You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? 27 Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.

28 "'Take the talent from him and give it to the one who has the ten talents. 29 For everyone who has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 30 And throw that worthless servant outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'

That which he had kept so pure and simple; kept just like it’d been originally given, was taken away from him and given to those who’d taken a risk.

Those people on Flight 93 were undoubtedly terrified. They probably hoped to be able to disarm the terrorists and safely land the plane – but regardless of the odds they weren’t going to sit there and wait for the plane to crash; wait for the crash that would be used as a weapon against innocent people.

Deena Burnett urged her husband Tom not to do anything. She wanted him to play it safe and not draw attention to himself. She was hoping that the situation would rectify itself. Trying something could fail, but several passengers realized that not doing anything meant certain failure.

For the three servants in this parable there was certainly risk associated with putting the master’s money to work. They could very well have lost everything (notice however that doesn’t even show up in the story…it doesn’t seem that failure was Jesus’ concern so much as failure to act due to fear)

For us today the risks are similar. We can choose to function with a “Let’s play it safe” mentality. We can choose to do nothing because we haven’t been given specific instructions on what to do. And we run a great risk of the master showing up wondering what we’ve done with His church.

“Lord we knew you were a jealous and Holy God. And so we’ve not done anything you didn’t specifically tell us to do. We’ve completely restored and preserved your church. Everything is just as you left it. See, here is what belongs to you.”

Playing it safe is a very dangerous game. Anyone who sees the good they ought to do and doesn’t do it, sins. We have to be willing to risk it all for the sake of the Kingdom. We risk rejection by our family or by other religious people. That is exactly what Peter and Paul did as they risked ministering to Gentiles…

We risk financially in the name of ministry. We risk being uncomfortable and out of our comfort zones.

Acts 16:6-10

6 Paul and his companions traveled throughout the region of Phrygia and Galatia, having been kept by the Holy Spirit from preaching the word in the province of Asia. 7 When they came to the border of Mysia, they tried to enter Bithynia, but the Spirit of Jesus would not allow them to. 8 So they passed by Mysia and went down to Troas. 9 During the night Paul had a vision of a man of Macedonia standing and begging him, "Come over to Macedonia and help us." 10 After Paul had seen the vision, we got ready at once to leave for Macedonia, concluding that God had called us to preach the gospel to them.

At this point, Paul does something radical. To us this seems like an obvious, easy decision. But in choosing to go to Macedonia Paul deviated from his intended route – his God ordained mission – and paved the way for the Gospel to move West.

God didn’t show up, Jesus didn’t strike Paul blind again. Paul saw a vision of a man. Through this he and his companions decided that God was calling them to Macedonia and they WENT!!!

Who, what or where is our Macedonia?

How are we taking a dangerous risk by playing it safe? Where do we need to be willing to risk everything for the Kingdom? These are important questions for our congregations, AND these are important questions for each of our families AND each of us individually.

Are we just waiting for the plane to crash or is a group of us going to do something about it?

Attention Youth Ministers - Don't give up on the deep end!

I read an article today on "Out of Ur",the blog for Leadership Magazine. It was called, Evangelical Drop-Outs and it sounded pretty familiar. It seems that USA Today has caught wind of something that we've been noticing for a while in youth ministry. I'm pretty sure that most people who read this blog these days (both of you) also read it a couple years ago when I was writing (admittedly with more regularity) as a frustrated yet hopeful youth minister.

The message I felt strongly about in those days - one which I feel even more strongly about today - was that we needed a new approach - a new theology - for youth ministry. My contention has been that our fiefdom approach to specialized ministries like youth, children, singles, etc., often leads to disconnected consumer-driven Christians. Our individualized and completely age-segregated ministry packages communicate something to people. And while I think it is true statement that "its a sin to bore a kid with the gospel", it is at least equally sinful to communicate to a kid that the gospel exists for their personal entertainment.

Critics have said that what I'm suggesting doesn't have any real application - that focusing on age-specific ministry is the only way we can attract young people. (Of course there are not that many of us attracting many kids other than the close friends of our members' children anyway, but we don't like to talk about that...). But this doesn't really gel with what we see played out in EVERY youth ministry that is successful in the least bit.

If teens don't want to spend time with adults why do they seem so distraught when a youth minister/youth worker leaves? Teens respond to adults that care about them - be it paid/professional youth ministers and interns or youth deacons and volunteers. They respond, they connect and they depend on these adults. It doesn't really seem to matter if the youth minister is the young, cool, athletic guy - I've known some really great old farts in ministry. So why is it that we think teens want to be around this youth worker but they don't want to be around any other adults? It isn't because they're adults - its because they don't seem to want to have anything to do with teenagers! I still say that if the purpose of adolescence is to learn to be an adult, you can't accomplish that by only being around other adolescents.

Critics have also said that I'm trying to buck the only system that will work; teens need to be teens and that means pizza, movies and ski trips are the vital components for attracting young people to the Body of Christ. Maybe that's why the teens from Skillman in Dallas have chosen 3 years in a row to spend a week serving and praying with people in New Orleans. Wonder Voyage, the ministry which has led these trips and which is itself led by people I respect and love greatly, is very up front that their focus for these trips is on Pilgrimage rather than "mission trip". The pilgrimage aspect suggests that those who participate in this event are not swooping in to "save" these poor people. Instead they are seeking a journey that will push them, challenge them and encourage reflection on their continued seeking the face of the Lord - and we see God's face most clearly when we are serving.

I'm excited that there are youth ministers trying to lead their ministries into deeper waters. B.J McMichael teaches a class at ACU on Adolescent Spiritual Formation , Houston Heflin teaches a grad class on youth ministry that challenges ministers to look carefully at the why's of their ministry programs in addition to the how's. And there are a lot more blogs by youth ministers wanting to dialog about a new kind of youth ministry than there were when I started blogging several years ago.

I know - from personal experience - that it is often lonely, difficult and overwhelming to remain committed to this approach to deeper ministry. It is so tempting to just give in and keep the kids happy - which promises to keep the parents happy, which in turn keeps the elders happy...and we all sing Kumbaya.

But it doesn't work that way. If you don't lead the way to something deeper and more authentic than pepperoni and black diamond slopes then eventually your teens will begin looking around and asking, "Is this really it?" And all too often, and all too unfortunately, this questioning doesn't occur sitting in your living room. It happens freshman year in a dorm room, or somewhere else no longer connected to a church.

You've got to remain committed, but don't try to do it alone. Treading water alone and unaided will lead to exhaustion. Let others support you and encourage you - find those people who are also craving a new kind of youth ministry. I pray with everything in me that if you are currently in the deep end or are at least wading further out, that God himself will bring encouragers into your life today. If he doesn't, contact me and I will do everything in my power to be that person for you until reinforcements arrive.

May the Lord bless you and keep you.

The Conversation

A few years ago I sat in a room with about 30 youth ministers/pastors/workers/whatevers that represented quite a few different denominations and faith traditions. We met about once a month and at this gathering we had a specific conversation topic in mind. The question was, "what does your faith tradition bring to the table that is of great value to the larger Christian conversation?" This could easily have been the start of the next holy war, but there was a decent level of trust in the room. This was the first time I'd really thought about what churches from the Stone-Campbell Restoration movement had to offer in an actual give-and-take with other Christian groups. What followed was a tremendously encouraging discussion.

That got me thinking about the need for more dialogue. The need for more unity under the name of Jesus the Christ. We have become incredibly efficient at recognizing and exposing the flaws in someone else's theology - and incredibly efficient at ignoring our own.

Recently Matt Tapie (www.twocitiesblog.blogspot.com) and received a comment on his blog that got him to thinking about the interaction between the Church (and even more specifically Churches of Christ) and postmodern culture. He asked me if I would write a little about the interaction between Churches of Christ and Emergent/emerging churches. The following is the post that I wrote for Two Cities, I've reposted it here because...well, I haven't written anything in a while and my brother is sick of looking at the Sabbath logo...

I don’t claim to be an expert on Emergent or emerging church. About the only area I do consider myself somewhat of an expert in is cooking fajitas…and consuming them. However, this discussion is very near to my heart. For several years I have struggled with our identity in Churches of Christ and have desired very much to determine ways that we can add to the larger Christian conversation – and what we can take from it.

We live in a time unlike any other in history in that ideas and words can gain household usage with unbelievable speed. The downside of this is that these buzzwords become popular faster than their definitions – hence they develop a myriad of different definitions put forth by the different individuals and communities using them.

When you add to that the ability for rants, polemics, critiques and demonizations to be batted back and forth instantaneously via blogs, websites, chat rooms and bulletin boards it is becoming increasingly difficult to have a reasonable discussion on nearly any topic without somebody claiming that it supports terrorism.

Matt has asked me to discuss the relationship between Churches of Christ and Emergent/emerging church. I think, with all the hullabaloo surrounding this particular topic, that it might be helpful to make a distinction between Emergent and emerging church. Often when people speak of Emergent they are referring to Emergent Village (EV) – a network of Christians with a national director (Tony Jones) that owes some of its popularity to charismatic leaders such as Brian McLaren. EV and McLaren can be polarizing entities in that many of the theologies they espouse (or allow for) can be described as a bit radical.

On the other hand the emerging church conversation – in which EV and Brian McLaren definitely have a large voice – is much more diverse. While McLaren’s more liberal theology finds much agreement in the emerging conversation it is by no means the defining theological viewpoint – a point that I believe he himself would defend vehemently. There are many Christians and gatherings of disciples that would characterize themselves as emerging – who may even use EV as a networking tool – who would not espouse some of the radical theological positions found in the writings of McLaren and EV.

The emerging church conversation in general deals, in part, with issues surrounding the postmodern tendency to prefer narrative over proposition, ancient rather than Modern, unity rather division, conversation rather than debate. It is not a rejection of reason, truth or Biblical faith. The concept of emerging church is the belief that the Church is still in the process of maturing and growing – of emerging. We Christians are still in the process of working out our salvation with fear and trembling.

I generally use the terms Emergent and emerging church interchangeably, however I believe that it is important for those who are not familiar with the conversation to recognize the vast diversity of thought contained within those words. I realize that I have not really cited any sources in the stating of these differentiations – if you challenge these distinctions contact me and we can talk about it.

Emerging churches often focus on the unity of believers and desire to find common ground in Christ rather than drawing lines in the sand over countless points of doctrine. This is not to say that emerging churches don’t believe you can draw lines in the sand, make distinctions or hold people accountable for the implications of their belief. Some who oppose emerging church thinking have characterized it as simply New Age spirituality, theological liberalism leading to nihilism, or a wholesale rejection of orthodox Christianity.

I won’t say that there haven’t been people in the conversation with an agenda for these things – just as there have been people with the same agendas in all threads of Christian thought.

There are some serious dangers associated with emerging church with which those from the Stone-Campbell heritage can readily identify and regarding which can perhaps offer counsel to the conversation.

While at this time many emergent gatherings show an affinity for ancient practices, there is also an inherent desire to avoid doing things just because they were done in the past. This desire for relevancy to postmodern culture can lead to a-historical or even anti-historical ecclesiology.

We in the Churches of Christ are (hopefully) beginning to realize just how damaging that can be. A rejection of our past begins to erode the foundation of our theology because over time the collective consciousness of the community (how’s that for alliteration) begins to forget the dialogue and study that led to certain conclusions. This can set the stage for a later rejection of central tenets of faith and/or a cementing of practices that previously had been held as matters of opinion.

There is also the old danger of throwing the baby of reason out with the bathwater of Enlightenment. I do not think that this a necessary part of what it means to be in this conversation as some opponents have suggested. But there is always the tendency to develop extreme positions in response to perceived abuses. Emerging churches must realize that while it is indeed vital to reclaim the importance of narrative, relationship and patient journeying, it is also true that some people have been wrestling with the desire to follow Christ and they really just want someone to shoot straight and tell them “what they must do to be saved.”

However, with all this said, I think there are some similarities between emergent church and our roots in the Restoration heritage. The desire to see Christians set aside denominational loyalties and instead unite under the banner of Christ was an issue of primacy for the early Restorationist leaders. Our movement tended to speak of this in terms of reclaiming the ideal of the first century, whereas in calling for the same thing, emergent churches speak in terms of moving forward into a more fully developed expression of Church.

Emerging churches emphasize community and relationship. There is a great emphasis put on each gathering of Christians to be accountable to one another and to the Lord rather than to what some organizational or denominational board somewhere else has dictated. For emergents this is often driven by the desire to be able to speak authentically into the culture where they live rather than conform to a mold cast in some other place or at some other time. I believe that this is very similar to our own treatment of congregational autonomy.

There is increasing evidence that baptism and the Lord’s supper are taking a central role in the worship life of emerging churches – while I see this as an obvious similarity to our own practice, I think that even more so it is an opportunity for us to reclaim the vitality and benefit of these practices (as opposed to treating them as battlegrounds over which we’ve fought or as simply requirements for proper worship.)

I have no delusions that I’ve done justice to this topic. I think that the relationship between emergent and the restoration movement will continue to be not only an interesting, but an important topic for discussion. For now, I’ll end these thoughts with a quote from Doug Foster and Gary Holloway’s book Renewing God’s People (ACU Press, 2006). I think that this statement – directed specifically at Churches of Christ – would resonate with amazing strength and clarity in the emerging conversation.

[We] stand at a crossroads. We can be a church that is very much at home in our culture, a church of powerful and successful people who seek to please other powerful and successful people. We can be a church that refuses to change because we have a corner on the truth, believing we are the fully restored church. Or we can be a movement of refugees. We can flee our success and materialism for refuge in the Prince of Peace. Refugees travel lightly. They are willing to change. They are on the journey of restoration, knowing that the church will never completely be what it should be, the spotless bride of Christ, until that day when Christ presents her to the Father. pg 137.

Amen and amen.

When the Wilderness Looks Good

There are few things in our lives that are more terrifying the “wandering in the wilderness.” The feeling of being lost…out of control…unsure of absolutely everything…

This wandering is often referred to wistfully by those who’ve never truly experienced it and those who’ve been home safe for many years. Have you ever been truly lost? I have. At first you’re calm enough, “surely if I just keep going this way I’ll get out of here.” Then you start wondering if you’ve seen that tree before. Soon the panic is clawing at you and you’re struggling to keep your breathing even – especially if there is someone “not lost” with you. Every imaginable worst case scenario is now running through your head and hope is beginning to seem like a quaint relic of another time and place.

Rachel has been drawn to the story of Abraham over and over recently. We often talk about Abraham’s calling…which was a call to go and was the beginning of his difficulty rather than the result of and blessed release from struggles.

What is wilderness wandering like? Fear, insecurity, rummaging and foraging for food; trying to appreciate the potentials benefits and dangers of this alien flora and fauna; learning to find shelter in new ways.

There are indeed few things more terrifying and difficult than wandering in the wilderness…except for wandering in the desert. When you find yourself in a barren and desolate wasteland you begin to think longingly of the underbrush, poison ivy, torrential rains and mosquitoes…well, maybe not mosquitoes. You think about the lush and wonderful environment that allowed for foraging, shelter, and of course water. The desert makes the wilderness seem like civilization.

I watched Lucky Number Slevin recently and really loved one scene in particular. Slevin is “visiting” the Rabbi (why is he called the “Rabbi”? …Because he’s a Rabbi.) and mentions his bad luck. The Rabbi wisely points out that luck is a matter of perspective. Yesterday Slevin did not owe someone a large sum of money, yesterday his life wasn’t in danger. But did Slevin appreciate his good fortune? Nope. Well, not until his fortune took a turn for the worse. “People always want what they had” the Rabbi points out.

What do we do when the wilderness looks good? What do we do when the desert sun is blinding us? I’m not sure. I do know that while being lost in the wilderness may have seemed bleak, the desert quickly teaches us to appreciate it…which begs the question, what will we find ourselves learning to appreciate tomorrow?

After wandering out of the wilderness and into the desert it doesn’t do much good to think about bounty of the forest nor the barren nature of the present locale. It doesn’t do much good to long for the security of slavery in Egypt, to long for Ur, or to remember the Alamo. All that matters is finding shelter; what’s important is finding an oasis where you can get nourishment. Philosophy and reminiscing are best suited for Trinity Hall over a pint of Murphy’s Red…

But look at what life has come from the desert – prophets and patriarchs learned to depend on God; often this deadly and harsh landscape was refuge and sanctuary for faithful people whose lives were in danger. Life coming from the desert seems paradoxical at best. But it fits. There is only one who has the power to bring about life from death, bounty from barrenness, blessing from curse.

Perhaps there is room for hope in the desert. Maybe there’s reason for rejoicing when the wilderness looks good…