During a recent conversation, friends were telling me about their journey back into the life of the Church, and of their experiences visiting various congregations.  One of these experiences easily stood out from the others:

It was a Sunday morning, and after loading their kids into the car they drove out to one of the larger, and fairly well known churches in their town. Once inside they felt overwhelmed by the performance-oriented "praise band", the constant use of the "big screen", and rally-like "feel" of the entire service.  As my friend put it, "I got out of there feeling like I needed to go to church!"

The point, of course, is that much of what is marketed and portrayed as "church" ends up being something less than that. And today's postmodern population is figuring that out.

Yes, my friend was raised in the church, and was exposed to worship styles both liturgical and contemporary.  But like so many -- young adults in particular -- he finds solace and comfort and strength from participating in liturgical worship and especially appreciates the ancient-future blend that characterizes the worship gatherings where I serve.

We evangelicals in particular have done violence to many of the ancient traditions of our faith, handed down to us through the centuries.  In their place, we have appealed to business and marketing models for doing church, and have used pop-psychology and political correctness as a measuring stick.  And although many of us are probably sick and tired of hearing how the Church's effectiveness and witness has been compromised by consumerism, materialism, and radical individualism -- the story of my friend's experience is a painful reminder that we certainly have done violence to the Church, and to her reputation.  How sad, that people would come desiring to worship God along with His people, only to leave feeling like what they just experienced wasn't even worship! 

Have we slipped THAT far?  Are we THAT blind? Are church leaders even open to the idea that we've got it wrong, or is it just easier to blame everything on consumer-oriented congregants?

.

Photo credit: © iStockphoto.com

David Neff, who served as moderator for this year's conference, offered an excellent summary as part of Saturday's closing remarks.  Fortunate for all us us, David has posted his summary on his Ancient Evangelical Future blog.

It's definitely worth the read -- and even more so if you're pressed for time and would appreciate a quick yet concise overview of what took place at this year's AEF Conference.

Thank you, David!

L-R: Joel Scandrett, David Fitch, David Neff, Howard Snyder, Rick Richardson.

This may well have been the most "friendly" amongst this year's panel discussions, but be careful not to think that means it was in any way less informative, interesting, or helpful.

Joel Scandrett commented that he doesn't like the term "Missional DNA" all that much (believing it was too "Pelagian"), preferring instead, "Missio Dei".  He also offered some fascinating thoughts on how careful the Church should be in using "DNA language" as well as "missional language", "kingdom language," and a few other common buzz phrases.  Finally, Joel hammered hard the need for churches to enroll our people in the work of catechesis. [this paragraph was edited on 11/9/08]

David Fitch focused on how when our communities of faith are "relational" and "communal", leading us to be "transformational", it connects us with the Missio Dei -- thus we become "missional."

Howard Snyder offered thoughts on the language of "the body of Christ," which he sees as more than simply a metaphor, but emphasizing the physical reality and presence of Christ.

A fascinating question from the floor, asked how "separatist ecclesiologies" (which he charged some of our panelists as have personally embraced) has affected our pursuit of the Missio Dei. In part, many of these "separtist" groups became such out of their commitment to renewal and a deeper commitment to ecumenical unity.

Rick Richardson echoed his talk, but went on to plead the importance the community of faith coming together to worship, and how we are formed into the image of God as we worship together.

At last, David Neff concluded not only the panel discussion, but went on to give an outstanding summary of what we had all witnessed at this year's AEF Conference (an EXCELLENT overview of what this conference was all about).  It appears at the end of this final panel discussion.
.
If you missed the panel discussion live, I've embedded it below:

.

The final speaker for this year's Ancient Evangelical Future Conference was Rick Richardson -- associate professor and director of the Masters in Evangelism and Leadership degree at Wheaton College.  Rick is also an ordained Anglican priest and served for three years as Pastor of Evangelism and Small Groups for Church of the Resurrection in Wheaton, Illinois -- a church known for its healing prayer ministry. Some of Rick's publications include: Reimagining Evangelism: Inviting Friends on a Spiritual Journey, and The Heart of Racial Justice: How Soul Change Leads to Social Change.

Rick sees "missional" as the new code word in the theology and praxis of ecclesiology.  But how do we become genuinely missional and not just rhetorically missional? Rick's presentation seeks to help people understand what God is doing in restoring the missional identity of the church, and how each church -- with its own unique missional DNA -- might fit.

Key thought: the Missio Dei is who God is, not what the church does.

*this is who we get our missional DNA from.

.

Far too often, we employ "missional rhetoric" as a badge of honor or simply as a way to differentiate ourselves from "others" (esp. those more liberal or revisionist-oriented than we are), rather than being compelled to live out God's mission.

After Rick's enthusiastic and fast pace teaching, he offered us the following questions as a springboard for dialogue:

1. With which previous and present missional movements that Rick talked about do you and your church most identify?  What movement would you most like to learn from, and why?
2. What might be your church's most natural missional orientation, among the different missional orientations Rick suggested?
3. What steps might you take to help your church discover and embrace her own missional DNA?

As before, let me encourage you to post your reactions, thoughts, & questions here.  Let the conversation begin!

And... if you missed Rick's presentation LIVE -- the archive video file is embedded below.

.

If you missed the final panel discussion of the night, following the presentation by D. H. Williams -- then here it is:
.

.
We'll see you tomorrow morning (Saturday) for our last session, featuring a talk by Rick Richardson on "Discovering Your Church's Missional DNA."

D.H. Williams is tonight's speaker; his presentation entitled, "Preserving the Church's Story."

Dr. Williams is the professor of Religion in Patristics and Historical Theology in the Department of Religion at Baylor University. Prior to 2002, he was associate professor of Theology in Patristics and Historical Theology at Loyola University Chicago. His publications include scholarly works on early Christian thought and literature as well as studies that seek to integrate the ancient Christian legacy into contemporary studies.  Most recently has appeared, Tradition, Scripture and Interpretation: A Sourcebook of the Ancient Church, as well as Retrieving the Tradition and Renewing Evangelicalism: A Primer for Suspicious Protestants.

Williams emphasized that if the church forgets its story, it will be shaped by the world's stories.  We can easily lose our identity and our mission.  To prevent such loss, the ancient church developed a systematic approach to Christian education.  It aimed to preserve its message by teaching its story.  Because many of its members were illiterate, the church's message had to be preserved in the minds and hearts of its members -- and this is exactly what is needed again today.  We must learn from the fact that the early church was a strongly didactic "teaching" Church.

As his presentation concluded, the following discussion questions were offered to conference participants as a springboard for dialog:

1. What can we glean from the mechanics of the early church's catechetical practices?  What things from the ancients are of little use?
2. How do Christians learn the cardinal points of Christian teaching (doctrinal and moral) in church settings?
3. In what way does one's view of baptism affect how the catechetical process should take place?
4. What cultural obstacles seem to hinder Christians from gaining a specific knowledge of their faith?

Well... give these some thought, and then don't forget to post your comments, thoughts, and reactions here. 

If you missed Williams' presentation, here it is:

Part 1

Part 2

This afternoon's panel discussion immediately dove into a fundamental disagreement about David Fitch's use of the term "capitalism" to describe the culture we find ourselves in.  Some on the panel felt that the term or concept of "American marketing" should be preferred over "capitalism", which should rightfully be seen as a friend-of-the-kingdom of sorts. Fitch aggressively disagreed.

As the conversation continued, the panel addressed the challenge of reaching the rich -- whom the Church frequently relies on for its programs and "progress", noting that the rich would not be so were it not for the capitalistic culture in which we live.

Next, the global expansion of capitalism was discussed -- in light of America's recent financial collapse.

Afterward, I had the opportunity to talk with David Fitch personally about American capitalism and the idolatrous tentacles it has in our national consciousness. It is David's conviction that despite our blind loyalty to the benefits of American capitalism at home and abroad, it in fact is in jeopardy of complete and utter failure -- a failure we will likely see materialize within the year.

This was a very lively panel exchange that you'll definitely want to listen to in its entirety.  So if you missed it, here it is:

Today's afternoon session featured David Fitch -- founding pastor of Life on the Vine Christian Community, professor of evangelical theology at Northern Seminary, and author of The Great Giveaway: Reclaiming the Mission of the Church from Big Business, Parachurch Organizations, Psychotherapy, Consumer Capitalism, and Other Modern Maladies (among other books).  David's topic: Should the Church and Capitalism Get Along?

As he began, David pointed out how capitalism is wrought with pitfalls, including the redefinition of the church according to business models.
He had -- as he called them -- Five Big Ideas:

1. The 50-year Niebuhrian Hangover.

2.  Incarnating the Gospel in Culture.

3. Postmodern Critique of Capitalism

4.  The Evangelical cultural accommodation to capitalism.

• Success is numbers/budget/buildings
• Worship as a commodity
• CEO leadership of an organization
• Making justice into a program -- keeping the poor at a distance ("justice at a distance")
• Ron Sider's "Rich Christians"

5.Discerning Practices "in but not of" Capitalism

• Worship as formation-liturgy
• Create a counter-politic of money (e.g. we will not know how to spend, apart from the work of our spiritual formation.  We might begin by revealing your bank account status to your Triad [i.e. discipleship small group].
• Create zones of consumerist resistance
• Engaging the poor communally
• Living simply-beneath your means
• Eucharistic meal
• Multiple relational leadership

We need to put the "market" at the service of Christ, rather than allowing to continue being the other way around.

As we broke for discussion around our various tables, David suggested the following questions as a jumping-off point:

1. List some ways "the Niebuhrian hangover" (either H. Richard or Reinhold) is evident in your local church.
2. In what ways does your church give evidence that capitalism (as a system and a set of values) governs the way you operate as a church? the discipleship that takes place at your church? the leadership and management of your church?
3. What practices can you foster to resist ill effects of capitalism upon your church body? to promote Christian community (versus delivering religious goods and services), relational justice (vesus safe "justice" at the distance), leadership of service (versus management of people), transformational gatherings (versus the "show"), etc.?

I'd really enjoy hearing your thoughts on these or other related matters.

If you didn't catch David Fitch LIVE, I will make it available within the week (sorry, but our live webcasting server unexpectedly dropped the connection and stopped the recording feature) once I upload it from my secondary camera and convert it to comply with maximum file size requirements).

When asked how her experiences within Black churches and Emerging churches has shaped her view of the Church, Janell immediately pointed to the syncretism she sees within White evangelical churches, between Christianity and capitalism -- a syncretism that leads to the selling of our faith as a product to change one's life.  This, however, is refreshingly absent within Black and Emerging congregations, according to Jenell.  In a follow-up question, Janell observed that the Black congregation she was once part of -- although clearly evangelical in their preaching -- did not categorize themselves as "evangelical", in part because the term "evangelical" remains so closely connected with white, evangelical America (for those living within the U.S.).

Of particular interest to me was a part of the panel discussion which centered around whether or not we should focus on and celebrate our ethnic diversity, or whether that focus ought to be on the transcendant oneness we all share in Christ.   Is "ethocentrism" the enemy of the gospel?

If you missed this discussion, LIVE, then here it is:

Day Two is now off and running.  This morning's speaker was Jenell W. Paris, professor of Anthropology and Sociology at Messiah College, PA.  Her research interests include women's issues, transgressive sexualities, postmodern Christianity, race, and African-American urban poverty.  Jenell is also a prolific blogger and is quite connected to the emerging church conversation.  Today's topic: "The Good, the Bad, and the Ridiculous: The Church Visible."

As an anthropologist, Jenell brought a refreshing scholarly prespective to our ancient-future faith in this postmodern world of ours. Especially inspiring, is how she points out the purpose-filled roles which imperfection, stress, and crisis play in our participation within's God's great story.

If you missed Jenell live, I'm embedding an her talk at the bottom of this post so you can watch at your convenience.

Here are the discussion Questions Jenell has provided for some initial discussion. I'd love to dialog with you about your responses, as well as what you thought of her talk.

1. Tell a story about a time you've seen a local congregation successfully integrate the good, the bad, and the ridiculous into its everyday life.
2. What does it mean to you to call the church "the continuation of God's narrative?"  Consider the elements of narrative structure like character, conflict, narrator, and plot.  How can a consideration of narrative help us think about what the church is?
3. If you were a sheep in Valerie Lew's art project, what word(s) would you want spray-painted on your back, and why?

Enjoy!

PART ONE:

PART TWO: