Is the Kingdom Outside the Church? Yes and Here’s Why: My Take on Matt 25, Reclaiming the Mission, David Fitch

“Is the Kingdom a.) contained within the boundaries of “the church?” the people who have already submitted to the Lordship of Christ?

Or is the Kingdom b.) outside the church where God is already working irrespective of where the church is or isn’t,

or c.) is there a combination where in effect God’s rule is already at work, but indeed the Kingdom becomes manifest materially wherever His people gather to submit to His presence in that time and location?”

Dallas Willard on Spiritual Formation being ‘Profoundly’ Social, Anabaptistly, Chris Lenshyn

“SPIRITUAL FORMATION, GOOD OR bad, is always profoundly social. You cannot keep it to yourself. Anyone who thinks of it as a merely private matter has misunderstood it. Anyone who says, “It’s just between me and God,” or “What I do is my own business,” has misunderstood God as well as “me.” Strictly speaking there is nothing “just between me and God.” For all that is between me and God affects who I am; and that, in turn, modifies my relationship to everyone around me. My relationship to others also modifies me and deeply affects my relationship to God. Hence those relationships must be transformed if I am to be transformed.” (Dallas Willard)

“God does not ‘love’ us without liking us…,” Rachel Held Evans

“From Dallas Willard:

“We must understand that God does not ‘love’ us without liking us – through gritted teeth – as ‘Christian’ love is sometimes thought to do. Rather, out of the eternal freshness of his perpetually self-renewed being, the heavenly Father cherishes the earth and each human being upon it. The fondness, the endearment, the unstintingly affectionate regard of God toward all his creatures is the natural outflow of what he is to the core – which we vainly try to capture with our tired but indispensable old word ‘love’.” 

― The Divine Conspiracy: Rediscovering Our Hidden Life In God“

The God Who Calls and Sends (Brueggemann), Crux Sola, Nijay Gupta

““God’s call disrupts the lives of settled people, both in biblical times and now. God sends, then and now, to transform the present world, subject to alien powers, into the world God intends. Discipleship and evangelism are, therefore, not primarily about church membership and recruitment but about an alternative way of being in the world for the sake of the world” — W. Brueggemann (“The God Who Calls, the God Who Sends”)”

Stanley Grenz notes that Jesus “spoke of the kingdom as both a realm over which God rules and God’s reign, rulership, or right to rule (Theology for the Community of God, 474).” This means that the Kingdom can be defined as a particular sphere of influence where God’s power is active and acknowledged and as the authority to rule that is God’s by virtue of God’s nature as Creator and Sustainer of the universe. When reading Scripture it is important to notice the context that the word “kingdom” is used in because this will often times define for us which aspect is being emphasized in the passage.

Let’s take a helpful example of how context affects word usage by examining the word ball. When I use the word ball, I could be referring to a soccer ball, a football, a baseball, a basketball, and on and on I could continue. Only when I use the word ball in a particular context can you understand which specific ball I’m referring to at that time. For example, “He dribbled the ball down the field and scored a magnificent goal past the outstretched goalkeeper,” would clearly show that I’m referring to a soccer ball . “He intercepted the ball, ran past four defenders, and dove into the end zone,” shows that the ball I’m talking about here is a football. In the same way, when reading the Gospels (and the rest of Scripture) it is important to see how the Kingdom is being referred to in context because that will reveal which aspect is being emphasized at that time. It may be one or both aspects and only the context can offer the clues necessary to understand which aspect or aspects are the focus.

Further the kingdom has two temporal aspects: it is already inaugurated in the present through God’s sovereign activity and power, yet it will only be fully realized at the return of Christ. A good but still imperfect analogy would be engagement and marriage: engagement means that there is already a deep commitment founded on love between the couple, an already active bond. Marriage is the public covenanting before God and community to maintain that bond of love, yet the bond was already present before the marriage vows were taken. The marriage vows confirm and deepen the bond, in a sense fully realizing it by vowing to a lifetime of commitment. In the same way we see God’s power at work in the world for reconciliation and restoration and his rule over the group (realm) called the church, but this rule and realm are not complete until every knee bows and every tongue confesses that Jesus is Lord when he returns. Looking at all of these aspects together will help us to see how the Kingdom, world, and church relate.

Kingdom and World

God is de jure (in principle) the ruler of all creation, yet because he allows us freedom, he is not yet de facto (in fact) the ruler and king of all humanity.   God does not exercise authoritarian, coercive force to bring this rule to bear, but instead, “God has given humans the privilege and responsibility of acknowledging his rule. In our sin, however, we have rejected the kingship of the Creator. Thereby we have erected an enclave of rebellion in which another- Satan- appears to reign (Grenz, Theology for the Community of God, 476).” In this sense the Kingdom of God, defined as God’s right to rule here, is over the entire world whether or not it is realized; God is always in charge but that doesn’t mean that everyone has acknowledged this rule.

While all of Scripture points up the rule of God over the world, this rule is most specifically related to Kingdom in Matthew 13:24-30, the Parable of the Weeds. Here we see the entirety of the world, the wheat and the weeds, referred to as part of the Kingdom.  The weeds are that group who don’t yet realize the rule of God, while those who have understood this rule are the other aspect (realm) of the Kingdom  which we see in Scripture.

Kingdom and Church

It would be a mistake to equate the church and the Kingdom completely because the Kingdom as shown above is more vast than just the group of believers called the church. However, the church is a special aspect of the Kingdom, that place on earth where God’s de jure (in principle) rule becomes de facto (in fact). In these people we see that the power of God’s Kingdom is already active, forming a people set apart and empowered to work for the reconciliation of the world. God’s power, God’s rule over this realm is already active and realized, yet it is not complete; it cannot be complete while humanity is still in a fallible state, affected by sin, the Devil, and the world to turn from God’s rule. Again, as above, the Kingdom will only be completely realized when we enter the new heavens and new earth. Until that time, the church is a foretaste, sign, and instrument of the Kingdom of God.

Conclusion

While some want to emphasize Kingdom as God’s rule over the world to the exclusion of the church and others want to focus on the church as Kingdom, I want to see it as a more inclusive category, encompassing both the church and world in different, but complementary ways. The Kingdom is that realm where God already rules, the church, and the Kingdom is the entire world as it relates to God’s sovereign right to be King. It isn’t just one or the other. This seems to me to do justice to the full import of Scripture in a nuanced and careful way that focusing on either aspect alone doesn’t.

In the closing post of this introductory series, I’ll examine more in-depth what it means to say the church is a sign of Kingdom.

Even a cursory reading of the Gospels reveals that the kingdom of God is a central (if not the central) focus of Jesus’ teachings. We are told to pray for the kingdom of God to come (Matthew 6), that it is all around us (Luke 17), that it is not of this world (John 18) and many other things that puzzle and perplex us just as they would have the original hearers. The original Jewish hearers expected a triumphal and warlike Messiah (King) to come and rescue them from the oppression they were enduring under the empire of Rome, to bring the rule of God to earth through a new creation that was often hoped for and described in the Old Testament as a society of justice, peace, love, and holiness (For example see Psalm 89 and Isaiah 54-55). Jesus did come to establish just such a society, yet not as a violent, earthly conqueror. What exactly then was the nature of this mysterious Kingdom if it was not a worldly empire like Rome?

If Jesus’ cryptic sounding statements don’t create dissonance when trying to understand the nature of the Kingdom of God, the proliferation of scholarly opinion will press the issue to dizzying heights of confusion. Most major New Testament scholars have weighed in on the meaning and nature of the Kingdom of God and their detailed explanations are far from synonymous. Among the various options are:

1. The Kingdom exists in the heart of believers

2. The Kingdom is correlated completely (or almost completely) with the church

3. The Kingdom is the entire world where God is at work

4. The church is part of the Kingdom in a specific way, while the entire world is part of the Kingdom of God in a different way

Which of these brief descriptions do you take to be the most accurate in describing the Kingdom of God? Is their a univocal definition of the Kingdom in Scripture? What is the relation between the church and Kingdom? 

I’ll weigh in on these questions in my next post which will continue to discuss the Kingdom of God and prepare for the last in this series which will give an explicit answer as to the meaning of the phrase sign of the kingdom.

“I am the king of the world…” – Jack Dawson (Titanic), myself, and other church leaders

“The Lord can certainly raise up for Himself another laborer to complete his work.” -Michael Sattler

I want to juxtapose two statements that are seemingly unrelated. The first is from the movie Titanic and as you will see is the attitude that many church leaders (myself included) take at one time or another. We’d probably never vocalize that sentiment, but that doesn’t mean our actions don’t make our subconscious thought evident for all to see.

On the other hand we have the simple statement from Michael Sattler, an important early Anabaptist leader and martyr who was imprisoned for supposedly heretical beliefs in 1527. Sattler was writing to his congregation in South Germany and it is clear that he sees his death on the horizon. In the face of what he knew would be a gruesome execution, Sattler maintained a deep trust in God and just as importantly a proper perspective on his place in God’s Kingdom. I fear many in the North American church leaders have lost these two vital characteristics of leadership.

The lives of many our leaders betray their lack of trust in God and an inflated sense of self-importance; how else can you explain the need to create church campuses where your image can be projected far and wide? How else are we to process a pastor flying from the east coast to the west coast in one day to preach at churches in both places? What does the fact that in many congregations one leader teaches almost exclusively reveal? Again, what does top-down, authoritarian leadership say about how we view self and trust God? Have we lost our trust in God to complete God’s own work and mission in the world to the extent that it has become our work and our mission? If so, what does that say not only about our lack of faith in God, but our lack of trust and confidence in other leaders and just as importantly the “priesthood of all believers”?

Sattler’s challenge to maintain a humble estimation of self and to trust deeply in God is one that we as leaders would all do well to meditate on frequently. Even those who may not fall into the temptations mentioned above can subtly begin to slip into habits and paradigms of ministry that indicate we are failing to see ministry as God sees its. One of the most common patterns that shows a failure in this area is extreme busyness. We as leaders take too much on ourselves. Meeting with too many people. Preaching too much. Being involved in every team and sub-team of the church. Playing a part in every decision making process about everything in the church, even relating to minute details. The lifestyle of busyness, as much as the above more extreme examples, yields insight into our hearts and shows that we may not trust God or others as much as we’d claim. It can show that we claim to be “king of the world.”

What other habits or paradigms come from faltering in this area? What would change in your leadership style if you truly believed God was in charge of God’s mission? How can you show your trust in God and others in the immediate future? Long-term?

Next week, I’ll offer some practical thoughts on how we as leaders can avoid becoming king of our ministry world.

This is the first in what I hope to be a regular feature on the blog as I return to regular content. Every Friday I plan to link to some of what I feel like are most significant blog posts during the past week or two in hopes that they will cause you to think and even better, further the discussion. So, without further ado here we go.

Why Progressive Christians Should Care About Abortion, Rachel Held Evans

Let’s face it: We are unlikely to find a single party that truly represents a “culture of life,” and abortion will probably never be made illegal, so we’ll have to go about it the old fashioned way, working through the diverse channels of the Kingdom to adopt and support responsible adoption, welcome single moms into our homes and churches, reach out to the lonely and disenfranchised, address the socioeconomic issues involved, and engage in some difficult conversations about the many factors that contribute to the abortion rate in this country, (especially birth control). It seems to me that Christians who are more conservative and Christians who are more liberal, Christians who are politically pro-life and Christians who are politically pro-choice,  should be able to come together on this and advocate for life in a way that takes seriously the complexities involved and that honors both women and their unborn children.

Robert Webber on The Theology of Evangelism in the Early Church, Chaplain Mike at Internetmonk

Ancient evangelism occurred in a setting hostile to the church and its values; it developed in the context of a clear self-understanding of the church as the eschatological people who are under the reign of God, the people who confess “Jesus is Lord.” It was evangelism with teeth, not an “easy believism” or a “cheap grace”; and it was a spiritual journey of discipleship, spiritual formation, and entrance into a new community.

Top Ten Reason Why Men Should Not Be Church Leaders, Robin Parry

10. A man’s place is in the army.
9. For men who have children, their duties might distract them from the responsibilities of being a parent.
8. Their physical build indicates that men are more suited to tasks such as chopping down trees and wrestling mountain lions. It would be “unnatural” for them to do other forms of work.

So What’s An Anabaptist?

Thus, for Bender, the focus was on discipleship not sacraments or the inner enjoyment of justification. The church was not an institution or a place for Word-proclamation in emphasis but instead a brotherhood of love. In addition, against Catholics and Calvinists who believed in social reform, like the Lutherans the Anabaptists were less optimistic about social transformation. But, unlike the Lutherans who split life into the secular and sacred, the Anabaptists wanted a radical commitment that meant the creation of an alternative Christian society.

The New Legalism: Missional, Radical, Narcissistic, and Shamed

The combination of anti-suburbanism with new categories like “missional” and “radical” has positioned a generation of youth and young adults to experience an intense amount of shame for simply being ordinary Christians who desire to love God and love their neighbors (Matt 22:36-40). In fact, missional, radical Christianity could easily be called “the new legalism.” A few decades ago, an entire generation of Baby Boomers walked away from traditional churches to escape the legalistic moralism of “being good” but what their Millennial children received in exchange, in an individualistic American Christian culture, was shamed-driven pressure to be awesome and extraordinary young adults expected to tangibly make a difference in the world immediately. But this cycle of reaction and counter-reaction, inaugurated by the Baby Boomers, does not seem to be producing faithful young adults. Instead, many are simply burning out.

Three Complementarians & a Mutualist

Really, complementarianism describes a biblically-derived complimentary view of gender roles in marriage, home, and church. That is, each gender – male and female – is different from the other, with different roles to play in these particular spheres of life; but each role is not “better or worse” than the other. Instead, each role complements the other! It’s all good, homeboys and homegirls (so long as both the homeboy and homegirl in question each stay within their particularly defined roles). Yet, as these roles are unpacked it becomes clear that there is not just gender diversity but gender hierarchy at work. Men are uniquely called to take the “highest” leadership positions in both the home (head) and church (elder/pastor), and women are called to other “lower” tasks that generally imply submission to male leadership.

The proclamation of the “gospel” has often failed to emphasize a fundamental element of the teaching of Jesus, and indeed, of orthodox Christian doctrine: “Jesus is Lord” is a radical claim, one that is ultimately rooted in questions of allegiance, of ultimate authority, of the ultimate norm and standard for human life. Instead, Christianity has often sought to ally itself comfortably with allegiance to other authorities, be they political, economic, cultural, or ethnic. Could it be that “Jesus is Lord” has become one of the most widespread Christian lies (emphasis here my own)? Have Christians claimed the Lordship of Jesus, but systemically set aside the called to obedience to this Lord?” Lee Camp, Mere Discipleship:Radical Christianity in a Rebellious World, 16.

“Jesus is Lord” seems like a simple statement on the surface, but the profundity of it is astounding. Claiming that Jesus is Lord is at the same time asserting that nothing else in life can hold our ultimate concern and that in every area of our life Christ should rule. This statement applies equally to our individual lives and our ecclesial organisms in which these individual lives must be found. The believers we gather with and the ecclesial culture created there shape our individual lives of discipleship to a large degree (see the first half of JR Woodward’s Creating A Missional Culture: Equipping the Church for the Sake of the World for an extended discussion on this point) and for this reason, I want to focus briefly on what “Jesus is Lord” means for the way our ecclesiology is formed and enacted.

Examining various strands of the American church it is easy to see what holds ultimacy: politics, nationalism and legislating morality, good works in the public sector, rigid and narrowly defined doctrine, relevance and programs, “big personalities” and autocratic leaders, and even the mission of God amongst some. I’m sure its not hard for you to think through the traditions I’m pointing to but not naming with the above emphases. Some of these foci/elements (not all) are admirable, yet when they usurp the rightful place of Christ as Lord of His church to a degree that they and not He are the primary focus, it is time for deep seeded change. And it is this need for change that has prompted Lee Camp to ask if the statement “Jesus is Lord” is actually an elaborate deception on the part of Christians and the church.

What foci or elements do you see as primary in your church? The churches around you? Strands of the American church?

How are we to restore Christ as Head and Lord of the Church?

The major problem that drives what I want to discuss is that those who adhere to a complementarian viewpoint as scriptural teaching must draw inferences as to what that looks like in their own cultural context. It is these inferences, often labeled as “necessary consequences” of the gospel itself that serve to highlight the vast inconsistencies and true patriarchy of the position. In its simplest form, complementarians would say that the male should hold the position of leader in the home and church and that certain roles in the church such as elder or pastor are reserved for men; most (but not all) also believe that men are the only qualified gender to teach a mixed group of females and males. All of this is then qualified by saying that while males are leaders, both men and women are equal in value. This is substantiated by an argument for roles within the Godhead where surely all persons are equal. As a simple statement of logic I’ve never been able to understand how this idea of equal people but restricted roles makes any sense.

For the sake of brevity, I want to highlight two inconsistencies/inferences that are drawn which to me do not seem to be scripturally warranted from the above minimialistic sketch of the complementarian position. Only when complementarianism is coupled with patriarchy, formerly prominent cultural views of gender, and repression can these extrapolations be warranted.

1. Women are allowed to teach when it is convenient: This is played out in many complementarian churches that have women as either youth directors or college directors. The complementarian would argue that teens are not yet men, but if we are too continue to utilize a literalistic hermeneutic across the board, the Bible would consider these young men as men. In terms of a female college director, I don’t know that any argument is warranted; surely we would consider eighteen year old males to be men who are thus being taught by a woman.

Another interesting caveat is that some complementarians will allow a woman to teach men as long as they are still considered “under the headship of another male.” I don’t know how you can draw that inference from Scripture: either 1 Timothy 2:11-15 means that women should be quiet and not teach men or it doesn’t. It can’t be read both ways without some real hermeneutical gymnastics.

One of the most vehement complementarian trumpeters, John Piper, recently displayed a prominent example of this particular inconsistency: in a podcast he said it is allowable for a man to be taught by a woman through written form such as a biblical commentary. This is even though he staunchly and firmly believes that a female should not teach a mixed gender assembly of believers and that the gospel itself is at stake in ensuring male headship is maintained.

Either Scripture is clear that women cannot teach men in written or verbal form at any time or it isn’t clear. If it isn’t clear for what seems like to me most complementarians, then something else under the surface is driving these beliefs on the teaching role of women and I would argue that it is patriarchy. If it were clear there wouldn’t be the widespread confusion.

2. Men must be the primary breadwinner in their homes: Mark Driscoll infamously and vehemently claims that men cannot be stay at home dads in this video, claiming that these men whose wives work while they watch the kids are “worse than unbelievers” and not “real” men. Even more stringently he has said that he would discipline a man in his church who was a stay at home dad unless there were some dire situation such as cancer involved. News Flash: nothing and I do mean nothing in Scripture dictates that a man must be the primary earner in their home. Not even if you are utilizing a complementation hermeneutic is this a viable interpretation of the verses that Driscoll bends to his own twisted interpretation (see the theme of domination becoming apparent). Noted New Testament scholar Ben Witherington says this in response to Driscoll:

There is in fact nothing in Titus 2, that justifies the way Mark Driscoll and his wife use that text to repristinize patriarchy. The Bible says nothing about women needing to ‘stay at home’ while dad goes out and ‘makes a living and provides for the family’. This whole way of envisioning the social situation is post-Biblical. Both the husband and wife worked in and out of the home or on the land in antiquity. There was no such division of labor of women in doors and men out doors or men away at some factory and women at home.”

If Scripture doesn’t endorse Driscoll’s view on work and gender, then where does this come from? Even if he believes males should be the leader of their home, where does he create the pattern for this? From culturally instantiated gender roles that were prevalent in male dominated societies after the industrial revolution. Scripture simply doesn’t define “leader” (even if you are a complementarian) as sole or primary earner in the home. The very idea that one person could stay at home is foreign to the cultural milieu of Scripture and is really only a first-world, Western issue.

In summation, if confused complementarians clearly aren’t getting their doctrine (or these aspects of their doctrine) from Scripture then their beliefs are revealed for what they are: culturally created patterns of male domination taken from a world history that is primarily patriarchal and overlaid onto Scripture to continue these patterns. This is contradictory to the very nature of the message and life of Jesus which was subversive to the dominant patterns of the world. However, most American Christians don’t realize that Christianity was not meant to be co-opted to power structures that choked and choke the very life out of it. Christians are living as if we are still in a dominant position in North America, often empowering the very powers and principalities that the death of Christ has and continues to defeat. Its time to awake from our slumber and regain the radically subversive message of Christ. And part of that means subverting the very cultural structures of patriarchy that have invaded the church itself.

Photo of Aiden by Hoskins Gallery

The first part of this post is personal and the second theological and found within is the rationale for the name change to the blog. Katie, Aiden and I have been on quite the journey in the last few months and I’d like to share a little bit about that with everyone and to also use this as a jumping off point for a major paradigm shift in my blogging.

In August 2011 Katie and I moved to “bonnie” Aberdeen so I could embark on PhD studies with Professor John Webster at the University of Aberdeen. Excitement and expectation abounded as we entered into a strange new world. The honeymoon period didn’t last long enough or really long at all. Without rehearsing all the gory details I had some sinus issues that developed and Katie’s pregnancy was awful for around six of the eight and a half months she carried Aiden. At the same time I was dealing with an existential crisis in regards to hell and the character of God (which was my thesis topic) that consumed too much of my emotional, spiritual, and mental energy. Ultimately with the guidance of John, I decided to shift my topic to something related to the doctrine of God (the doctrine of divine simplicity) and step away from my struggle with eternal punishment.

That move was life saving and at the same time life draining; I immediately began to sense a positive emotional and spiritual change, but at the same time became disenchanted with my academic work. I had a deep period of soul searching through prayer, meditation, recollection, and conversations with those who have been and are intimately involved in my life. I ultimately came to the conclusion that the malaise I’d been experiencing was because I was focusing my entire life towards a trajectory that was not entirely commiserate with my giftings and my heart’s deepest desires. Having been involved heavily in local church ministry my entire life, I realized that I wanted to again focus more of my energy there while at the same time focusing less energy on my academic work.

All of this (and an assortment of other issues, mostly that I wanted to make a major shift in topic to ecclesiology half way through my program!) meant that it was best for us to relocate back to the Atlanta, GA area. The initial plan was to live here temporarily while I sought a ministry job and continued working on my PhD, but as I began to search the job boards and make contact with people I realized that none of the jobs were really exciting me. At the same time one of my mentors (Dane Burk) asked a very pointed question of me: are you a sustainer or builder? Not that these ministry roles are mutually exclusive, but as that question continued to roll over and over in my mind, I realized that I was most passionate about building and developing and growing and that was why I was sensing a dis-ease with the jobs I was checking out.

The answer to that question should have been no surprise to me: Katie and I have been involved in three church plants during our married life and at the fourth church we attended (and I worked at) we helped start separate college and young adults ministries. In the past Katie and I had prayed and had some loose, initial conversations about starting a church in New England or staying in Atlanta and continuing to learn from the ministry of Renovation Church with the desire to one day be sent out to plant. That was all before the brief detour to Scotland. I call it a detour because now that we have returned, we are praying about how God would use us to plant a missional community in Buford or Woodstock, Georgia (trying to sort that one out soon!), that would be a sign of the Kingdom of God (more on that in the Part Two).

At this point we are in the process of seeking the best direction for moving forward with the desires we feel like God has planted in our hearts. This means much prayer and Scripture, many conversations, and making important connections are our primary foci for now. Please pray with us as we determine how to proceed. The next two months will be key for us as I’m attending the Missio Alliance gathering centered around the topic The Future of the Gospel: Renewing Evangelical Imagination for Mission and then the next month, I’ll be attending a week long church planters’ training event entitled Genesis: A Theological and Practical Trajectory for Missional Church Planting  which is the training experience of the Ecclesia church planting network. (Disclaimer: This doesn’t mean there is any type of formal relationship between myself and Ecclesia; I am hoping to establish relationships with network members and through prayerful discernment and assessment on everyone’s part see if there is a fit.)

David Fitch and Geoff Holsclaw, two church leaders and theologians (shorthand: missional theologians) have written an excellent primer, Prodigal Christianity: 10 Signposts into the Missional Frontier,  on the shifts that have taken place in the American cultural context and the response merited by the church. Buy it. Read it. Digest it. Discuss it. This will be an important book moving forward for helping people understand and apply the ideas related to the church’s mission in the world. In this book, they offer these two helpful statements on Christendom (I’ve combined them for clarity):

“Speaking in terms of Western history, Christendom refers to the Middle Ages of Western Europe when all of society (church, state, schools, work, art) was united under the umbrella of Christianity. All of life— work, commerce, education, politics, family, and money— was ordered toward the church and around the core beliefs in Christianity…Christendom is about the church’s fundamental alliance with the broader culture as a cultural strategy (6, including footnote 3).”

While that may be a bit abstract for some, they flesh it out in terms that are readily accessible when they note that,

Fifty years ago, it was not uncommon for our parents (or grandparents) to watch Andy of Mayberry and see Andy in the pew on Sunday and Barney singing in the choir. In those days, stores were closed on Sunday. Popular evangelist Billy Graham could go to a city and hold what was basically an evangelical Sunday morning service in the local municipal stadium, and thousands would come. A majority of people would go to church on Sunday, and those who didn’t go would feel slightly guilty. Many Protestant churches held a Sunday evening service to do evangelism, expecting their regular members to bring non-Christians to hear a targeted gospel message. Regular church people would attend a midweek service, as well as serve with the Boys and Girls Clubs. Life revolved around church. Even public television had to watch its p’s and q’s regarding religion and sexuality. Government gave its nod, and the public schools basically cooperated with the Christian agenda. These were the days of Christendom in North America (7).

Doesn’t that picture sound ever more distant as we move forward into post-Christendom? The church no longer holds the position of power or influence that it once did in this nation, yet a large segment of American Christianity still act as if it does. There is a deep sense of entitlement amongst many Christians because they are trapped in a foregone era. There is the assumption that everyone from the government to Google should openly hold and espouse Christian values. And the recent flare ups have highlighted this for all to see.

Rather than worrying about gay marriage, I contend that we should worry about our own marriages and the witness they present to those who see Christian marriages that are not markedly different from their own. Further, I would argue that we shouldn’t be worried about who Google puts on their homepage, especially not on a day when we should be celebrating what we claim is the event that changes the world and our own lives. How petty does it look and how unimportant does it make the resurrection look if we are spending our Easter upset at Google rather than focusing on our redemption and reconciliation, on the defeat of death and sin and the principalities and powers? Instead of chastising Google, why didn’t we and don’t we continue to focus on Christ and present a compelling witness that makes others want to embrace Him? What does having a sour attitude accomplish by way of witness to the world (especially when the dude honored was a civil rights activist!)?

The dissonance created by the church stuck in and pining for an ever receding vision of society and the post-Christendom culture that we now inhabit is massive. Its call for a fundamental shift in our way of being the church in the world that no longer respects and often fails to notice our Christian witness that has come to mirror the culture at large. If we are to be a Body that endeavors to spread the Kingdom of God through the power of the Spirit we must understand we are no longer (thankfully!) in a privileged position.

The new direction of this blog (which is why I renamed it, along with a host of other reasons) will seek to provide theological and practical insights into how you and I as the sent ones of the Father, Son, and Spirit should respond to these seismic shifts in American culture, but the first step is to realize that the shift exists. It will take more than this brief post to convince many of the changes needed, but it is my prayer and hope that the church can begin to create a counter-cultural community centered around the Cross, untethered from the encumberments and enticements of the world, that will offer a witness to those who are watching.