Bill Easums Observations

I’ve had three major mentors in my life - Nelson Mandela, Carlyle Marney, and Billy Graham. Each of them very different from my theology and political persuasions but nevertheless men from whom I learned aot.

Nelson Mandela taught me never to give up on what you believe even if it looks hopeless.  Carlyle Marney, a very liberal Southern Baptist, taught me it is okay to be a rebel. He also edited my first sermon when I was 17 and told me it was crap! And Billy Graham taught me the guarding oneself from the opposite sex while doing ministry.

 So on the 90th birthday of Billy Graham I felt the need to thank him for all he did for me even though we never met. I was privileged once to experience him in a large rally back in the 50s.  The man was larger than life then.

Did you know that when he traveled he reserved an entire floor of the hotel. Had all the TVs taken out and had guards at the elevator doors and exit entrances so there would never be the hint of sexual impropriety.

Of all the larger than life religious figures Graham is one of the very few who made it through his entire ministry without as much as a peep of scandel. We can all learn a lesson from that.

Happy Birthday Billy.

Bill Easum
www.easumbandy.com

I’m going to rant today so go ahead and forgive me before you start reading.Aren’t you glad the elections are over?  It seems as if they get more negative every year.

Aside from that……Have you noticed - debate in this country is no longer considered important?  Well, it isn’t.  I invite you to consider the following:

In the past Universities were places where learners could debate issues without fear of being labeled or criticized. But today, some issues are no longer considered debatable in universities or seminaries and those who wish to debate them are criticized or labeled.In politics debate has given way to accusation and innuendo. Politicians don’t debate real issues any more, instead they sling mud.  Today, it’s not good to have a clear position on anything political.

Newscasters are no longer unbiased in their reporting, and that really ticks me off.  Where can I find unbiased reporting today? Every major TV news broadcasters are clearly biased on the liberal side and Fox is clearly biased on the conservative side and some major newscasters have been replaced because they allowed their political position to influence their broadcast. One of the San Francisco newspapers ran a double-edged, gay-hate editorial on the Haggard affair. Who can you trust to give you the real news? No one. Where are the Walter Cronkites who tell it like it is?Now to the religious scene.  Didn’t think I was going to pick on this one did you? Mainliners denigrate evangelicals.  Evangelicals look down their noses at mainliners.  Liberal leaders think their conservative brothers and sisters are stupid and naive.  Conservatives feel as if their liberal brothers and sisters aren’t even Christians.Where does it all end?I’ve found that those who throw mud do so because they don’t have anything positive to offer.  I’ve also found that those who think they have God under their thumb are the farthest from the Kingdom. Liberal and conservative take notice.If the above has any truth, then we are indeed in a hostile world.  Most of us worry about terrorists.  And we should.  But something more sinister is destroying the heart of our country. Hate, bigotry, and fear is tearing us apart.

One of the characteristics of the emerging world is polarization. At the same time the world is coming closer together, it is also coming apart.  The isolation of ideologies is at the core of this fragmentation. We no longer debate different opinions or tolerate other faiths. Now we seek to do the other in, no matter what it costs.  The Crusades are back! Jihad is the mantra! Conservatives are bigoted! Liberals are not Christians.

Where will it end?The fifth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles gives us a directive for a time such as this.  When the Apostles were brought before the Sanhedrin for treason, a Pharisee by the name of Gamaliel said,” …I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. 39But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.” 

Why can’t we take that position today? I think it is because most leaders today are too insecure to trust what they believe.  I understand why the Muslims flew the planes into the Towers - they hate Christian’s guts the same way the Crusaders hated the infidels. Both violated the tenets of their faith.What I can’t understand is how people of faith hate one another or how reporters can violate their profession and let their bias color their reporting of what is suppose to be news. It just doesn’t compute to this Simple Simon. One of the key issues of our time is how to be radical about ones faith or position without being a bigot filled with hate.  Hate, whatever form it takes, is evil. So the next time you are prone to run down a brother or sister who is at the opposite ends of the Christian pole remember, there but for the grace of God goes you.Oh, I already hear the email banging away with people who want to tell me how wrong I am. I wonder if it will be a debate or?

The Primary Conversation of Our Time Becomes Clearer

Im coming to the end of this series and want to thank everyone who has contributed. Who knows you may find some of it in a book some day.

We are all indebted to the Emergent, Incarnational and Organic folks for so clearly calling to our attention the fact that Western Christianity is nowhere near what Jesus had in mind when he sent his disciples out into the world to build his church. We need to hear them. Moreover, we should be listening to why they feel so passionate about Western Christianity being either irrelevant or a counterfeit.  Doing so may help some of us change our ways or avoid some of the mistakes made by institutional churches.

Perhaps now you see why these conversations lie at the heart of thefuture of Western Christianity. If the basic mission of Christianity is not the health or growth of institutional churches but churches that contribute to the expansion of the Kingdom of God, then the vast majority of established Western Christianity is virtually dead. The acknowledgement of this condition is one of the reasons why this conversation is so important. If our churches were making disciples, transforming their communities, and actually bringing the Kingdom to bear on this earth, the conversation around the Emergent, Attractional, Incarnational, and Organic folks would not be necessary. But it is, and all of us had better take heart and listen to what God is saying in this conversation. 

However, the Emergent, Incarnational, Attractional, and Organic conversations are not the primary conversations in which we should be engaged.  The focus of our conversations should be on the multiplication of the Kingdom of God rather than the health or growth of the institutional church.  In the context of our society that means we must focus on what it means to be the institutional church that advances the Kingdom of God. As long as our society is based on institutions we can’t throw the baby out with the bath water.   

If we are listening to the conversation, we can’t help but be impressed by the enormous potential awaiting the church if it frees itself from its institutional bondage and becomes engaged in Kingdom ministries like churches planting churches, multiple-site churches, Organic churches, and yes, Incarnational ministries that leave behind the institutional church as we know it, and even the Emergent folks who ask all kinds of uncomfortable questions.

We are witnessing the birth of what I call the ‘Untethered Church”- the church free to be the church wherever two or three are gathered together, a pub, a night club, a strip mall, a neighbor’s home, a parking lot, a shooting gallery, a soup line, a biker club, a coffee shop, and even an institutional church whose primary mission is to those who aren’t yet part of the Kingdom of God.

The emerging world is shaping up to be wonderful riot of expressions of authentic Christianity. Something we haven’t seen for some time. The question is – Will you be a part of it? One more post to come on What Can I Do with these Conversations?

The Reproductive/Multiplication/Movement 

So far our we’ve looked at several conversations – Emergent, Incarnational, Organic,  and  Attractional/Incarnational.  Now it’s time turn to another major player in this ongoing conversation- the one, I think, which should be occupying most of our time and energy- the Reproductive/Multiplication groups. 

The primary difference between the effective attractional/incarnational folks and the Reproductive/multiplication folks is that the reproductive/multiplication leaders focus almost exclusive on the process of church planting and/or multiple sites as opposed to growing their own church. Their focus is not on their church but on advancing the Kingdom. I know most of the attractional/incarnational folks would say they believe in church planting, but that’s not their primary focus. Reproductive/multiplication leaders focus primarily on reproducing churches that reproduce churches. Reproductive/multiplication leaders also realize that Western Christianity is in the tube but aren’t willing to give up on the institutional church.

We are seeing leaders emerge whose primary mission is the advancement of the Kingdom rather than the growth of their church. This is what separates these pastors from all the others (I would have to say that Hugh Halter has a similar mission). The primary ways they advance the Kingdom is through developing church planting and multiple sites. Instead of a new faith or new Christians they are calling Christians back to the primary mission of the church- to “go make disciples.” 

The impact of this reproductive/multiplication movement is growing exponentially. One example is the recent Exponential Conference. Three years ago a group of reproductive/multiplication leaders, led by Todd Wilson, started a church planting and multiple site event called Exponential. Three hundred people attended.  This past April (2008), over 3,000 people attended the event. Church planting churches and multiple site churches are now one of the fastest growing segments of western Christianity. Many voices head up the Reproductive/multiplication movement. I can only mention a few. 

GlocalNet http://www.northwoodchurch.org/glocal/glocal.html is an organization founded by Bob Roberts, pastor of NorthWood Church http://www.northwoodchurch.org in Keller, Texas.  GlocalNet is establishing church planting centers all over the U.S.  Robert’s goal is to resource these centers so that far more churches can be planted than if his church continued to focus on church planting.  

Dave Ferguson, pastor of Community Christian Church in Naperville, Illinois  http://www.communitychristian.org, has developed New Thing http://www.newthing.org/index.htm, whose purpose is “to  be a catalyst for a movement of reproducing churches relentlessly dedicated to helping people find their way back to God.”  

Wayne Cordeiro, pastor of New Hope Christian Fellowship in Honolulu http://enewhope.org, has established New Hope International http://www.enhi.org for the sole purpose of raising up 21^st century church planters throughout the world.   

Todd Wilson, pastor of New Life Christian Church in Centerville, Virginia and founder of Passion for Planting http://www.churchplanting4me.com has joined with Dave Ferguson, founder of New Thing Network to form Leading Edge Ministries, (www.leadingedgeministries.org), an alliance of many leading organizations whose purpose it is to make it feasible for any church to take part in the church planting movement.  They offer all of the supporting resources and coaching for planting a church. 

What’s so interesting about Reproductive/multiplication leaders is that they openly embrace the Incarnational people. These leaders have made one thing clear- you don’t have to be incarnational or Emergent to spread the Good News.  They realize that reaching the world will take the combined effort of all forms of Christianity. 

The reproductive/multiplication leaders incorporate the best of the incarnational, the attractional, the organic, and the Emergent values. They believe we must plant as many churches as possible in as short a period of time as possible in any way possible. But their emphasis is not the institutional church; their emphasis is on planting churches that will plant other churches. The emphasis is not on the church but on the process of planting. These leaders also realize that in today’s world big may not always best, so they embrace the multi site route as well as the Emergent and Organic, and House Churches. 

My prediction is that Reproductive/multiplication leaders will do far more to shape the future of Christianity in the West than will all of the other voices taking part in this conversation.  

So here are my questions to the Reproductive/multiplication leaders. When are all of you going to get together and bring about one huge movement that will change the course of the world? What’s keeping you from forming a Reproduction Bank where people of all persuasions can donate money to the cause of planting church planting churches?  When are any of you going to truly become a movement?

The Organic Conversations
The Organic Movement is a kissing cousin to the Incarnational movement and a distant cousin to the Emergent movement. Like the other two it doesn’t see as much of a need for the institutional church has had traditional Christianity. But unlike the Emergent movement it is more literal in its interpretation of Scripture and truth. Neil Cole has long been one of the leading voices for the organic church. In his view the house church is the primary form of church. I have no problem with this view because Cole doesn’t dismiss the institutional church. In fact, one of my partners, Bill Tenny-Brittian, has extensive roots in the house church movement. I see it as a kissing cousin to small groups that multiply.  However, a new voice on the scene is Frank Viola and his book (with Barna), Pagan Christianity. This book stands in direct opposition to the Emergent folks because it takes a more literal approach to the Scripture. His book documents the problems with the institutional church that functions more like a business than the living organism it was created to be. Pagan Christianity is not only a logical sequence to Barna’s recent book, Revolution, it also is an interesting and accurate account of the historic events that have shaped today’s counterfeit form of Christianity.  

Their major criticism of today’s church, other than it being totally non-biblical, is the passivity and the elitism of today’s Church. I agree the passivity and elitism of today’s church is deplorable and has to be addressed if Christianity is ever going be what Jesus wanted it to be. Every church leader ought to read this book and respond to its criticism of modern day Christianity.  Any positive movement away from these two sins of the church and this book has done its job.  Although the authors leave some wiggle room, the only really logical conclusion of their arguments is the end of the institutional church.  Whereas I agree the present form of Christianity isn’t biblical, I still question whether what they suggest can survive much less thrive within our context. Frank Viola’s Reimagining the Church is a logical sequel to his book Pagan Christianity. Like the former book, this one is a meticulous, interesting, disturbing look at the New Testament understanding of the early church.  What’s interesting is I agreed with much of Pagan Christianity but not with much of Reimagining the church. In this book Viola makes his true feelings known- the only legitimate form of Christianity is the house church. Toward the end of his book he compares the renewal of the institutional church to trying to repair a house whose foundation is cracked. 

Before giving my critique of his argument I need to say a couple of things. First, anyone who has followed my writings knows I have been a critic of most of the modern day forms of the institutional church for a long time. My books, Sacred Cows Make Gourmet Burgers and Growing Spiritual Redwoods both point up the need for a more organic approach to the church, but without abandoning the institutional setting. I just don’t feel as if Christianity can reach its potential in an institutional and concert driven society without assuming some form of institution and large venue worship.

Second, we should all be endebted to Viola for his diligent and provocative work. Like the Emergents, Viola has revealed the naked truth – the emperor has no clothes.  Most of the practices of modern day Christianity, including our forms of church, are foreign to Scripture and are in many ways lethal to the development of the kingdom of God. We must hear his argument and apply the applicable implications without throwing the baby (institutional church) out with the bath water.  However, I find Viola’s basic conclusion about the institutional church to be flawed for several reasons: 

1. Viola sees the Trinity as the key to understanding the church (page 33 ff).  But nowhere in the Scriptures is the church described as the reflection of the Trinity. In other words, he uses a man-made doctrine (the Trinity) rather than Scripture to provide the meaning of a biblical term and to repudiate other man made doctrines. I’m not denying the Trinity. I’m just saying it is poor scholarship to use one man made doctrine to denounce another man made doctrine and call it The biblical position on the subject.
2. When comparing the institutional church to the organic church Viola always uses the best possible examples of the organic church and the worst possible examples of institutional church practices. Viola refers to the house church as if It is a panacea where everyone loves everyone. I’ve had enough experience with house churches to know they have as many problems and are as shallow as are most institutional churches.
3.  Throughout the book he totally ignores many of the new forms of church life emerging simply because it is institutional. And he encourages his readers to abandon the institutional church altogether.  I think this is a very deadly game he is playing.
4. Viola acknowledges the need for contextualization (pps. 37-39) when it comes to cultural things in the Scriptures but denies the need to contextualize the Gospel into our present culture.  It’s okay to rule out the need for women to cover their heads in public but it’s not okay to say that in an institutional and concert driven world an institutional church with a formalized worship service might be valid. To him that would be “overcontextualizing,” but who is to say where the line should be drawn? 
5. When it suits him Viola uses a literal translation of the Greek; when it doesn’t he loosing interprets the text to fit his basic premise. Consider his treatment of oversight in the church (Chapter Nine) and authority and submission in Chapter 12.  In both cases he either interprets a clear text into oblivion (pps. 168-176, ) or he totally ignores texts (p. 211) that don’t fit his theme. One of the most flagrant attempts to make the  Scriptures fit his thesis is on page 193 where he proof texts congregational consensus decision making by quoting from Acts 15:22 “with the whole church” and totally ignoring Acts 15:6-7 “The apostles and elders met to consider this question. After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them.”
6. His use of the term, “family,” to be the basic metaphor for the church goes against most  of  Scripture where the church is described as the “body of Christ,” or the “bride of Christ” (Chapter Five).  If Christianity has to be contextualized to the world in which it finds itself to be effective, then what Viola is advocating will be the death of Christianity in the West.  Without the institution and without large venue worship, the vast majority of people in this country will never experience Jesus. The house church movement has simply not shown itself to have long term sustainability.  I have no problem with the house church movement. I pray it flourishes; but I also pray the institutional form of Christianity can take the legitimate violations of biblical principles Viola points out and put them into practice.  And what would this look like?
7. Church planting would be the number one mission of all of God’s people and Apostolic church overseers would emerge as the most important role in the church.
8. The distinction between laity and clergy would be replaced by the priesthood of all believers and preaching and teaching would be based on affirmed gifts rather than on academic authority.
9. Leadership would always be a shared leadership (Chapters Eight and Nine). But still there needs to be a “first among equals” for Christianity to reach its potential in our society.  However, leadership must be earned, not taken. The primary roles of this leadership would be to servant (role model), motivate, and mold.
10. Christians would understand that church is not something they “go to” but is something they are wherever two or three of them gather.
11. Every believer would be a participant in a regular small group where all the pastoral care and edification would be received (Chapter Four).
12. The large venue worship would be solely for evangelistic purposes rather than the care and feeding of a passive audience (p. 49).
13. The Lord’s Supper would never be taken in public worship but would be experienced in the small group where there is complete unity and agreement and “friendship intimacy” (Chapter Three).
14. All authority would have to be earned within the congregation so most of the pastors and staff would be raised up from within the congregation (Chapter Nine).
15. Denominations would no longer be needed as people would understand that there is only one church in each city and our unity would be based on our acknowledgement of the Lordship of Jesus Christ (Chapter Six).
16. The Church would understand that it is the Body and Bride of Christ and act accordingly which means unity, harmony, and a common purpose prevail (Chapter Five).
17.  Decision making would prerogative  of the Elders (shared leadership team) of the church as is demonstrated in Acts 15 (you should note that Viola interprets this text into oblivion with some strange story that brings the entire Jerusalem church into  the decision making process p.193). I find nothing in Viola’s writings that can’t be applied to the institutional church. Sure, it will cause much consternation in most congregations. But we still won’t have to throw the baby out with the bath water. Viola’s book would be far more appealing if he left room for contextualizing the church into our society and eliminating all of the bad baggage of established Christianity.

So here’s my question not so much to the Organic folks but to the Attractional and Reproductive folks: how can we take the unarguable truths in this book and apply them to our present day context?

I first wrote about movements in my book Unfreezing Moves: Following Jesus into the Mission Field.   I described Christianity as an organic movement and compared it to modern day religion. God intended for Christianity to be a movement not a religion.  The problem is Christianity has been highjacked by our passion for democracy.

Movements only happen when an individual is free enough to take on the mantel of an apostle. Democracy hates an apostle with a passion- thus we have been free from movements in the U.S. for some time now.

However, over the past few years I’ve watched the emergence of a number of apostolic leaders who are changing the face of Christianity in the U.S.  In an article titled “The Apostolic Movement of our Time, I wrote the following about this new movement

• One quality stands out above all the rest in every one of these pastors – they pastor as spiritual leaders who listen to God rather than corporate leaders who lead based on democratic rule. 
• The rule of thumb of this new movement – the less democracy in the church the more authentic and effective the church is in advancing the Kingdom of God!

 You can read the full article here.

Bill Easum
www.easumbandy.com

One thing separates the mediocre pastor’s actions from those of the highly effective and might I say biblical pastor. Know what it is? Okay, don’t want to guess? Well here it is – the mediocre pastors spends most of his or her time doing all kinds of pastoral care- taking care of members, visiting the hospitals and shut-in, mediating conflict in the church, doing counseling, and doing things in the office other than devotional or sermon prep.

So what does a highly effective pastor do?

I guess before I answer that question I need to define what I mean by “highly effective.” To me “highly effective” means the pastor is doing something to enhance both the Great Commandment and the Great Commission, i.e. the church is a place of love, trust, and growing people.

So what does a highly effective pastor do? As little as possible other than focus on being the spiritual architect who sets the culture and mentors the core leaders.

So what happens to pastoral care?

Read Acts 6 and you will get your answer.

The U.S. Church is in a mess (see The American Church in Crises) It continues to decline as the population increases.  We are facing the perfect storm if something doesn’t change.  And as is the case in all enterprises, that change must be initiated from the top, by the pastor.  If pastors don’t change the way they go about life and ministry, the Church will continue to decline in the U.S.

That’s why when a book comes along like the Hughes’ Liberating Your Ministry from Success Syndrome I want to puke. The last thing we need is to allow ourselves anyway off the hook for the mess we’re allowed to happen on our watch.  I don’t know the Hughes. I’m sure they are wonderful people, but reading their material, I have to wonder if they ever pastured a growing church.

I’m as skeptical about a person who says numbers aren’t important to faithfulness as I am about someone who says numbers are everything to faithfulness.  But I will not allow faithfulness to be relegated to some sweet life of loving, believing, prayer, and holiness.  Listen to the way the book is described at Christianbook.com  

 “Offering biblical perspectives and personal reflections, longtime pastor Hughes and his wife show you that true accomplishment in ministry lies not in numbers but in faithfulness, serving, loving, believing, prayer, holiness, and a Christlike attitude. You’ll learn to confront your feelings of failure differently—and discover a godly understanding of success. “The last the average pastor today needs is to find a way to comfort their feelings of failure. Man what a travesty. 

Pastors, please don’t rush out and buy this book just to rationalize your feelings. Instead get on your knees and break your heart over the plight of your city and resolve to make it a better place. Decide now to spend 80% of your time working either with non-believers or with leaders in your church who will spend time with their non-believing friends.

Bill Easum
www.easumbandy.com

I just finished an interview with Craig Henningfield who is the missionary coach for the Church Without Walls in Denver. The Church Without Walls is a growing, loosely networked group of  house churches. Question: Why the House Church?Every day I meet more people who are dissatisfied with the institutional church.  Most of these people have never read the books like Pagan Christianity or the Barna research. I also run into many pastors who have been dissatisfied with the institutional church but still want to serve. We can’t throw the baby out with bathwater just because a churched tradition no longer serves a growing number of people.Question: How do you fund your ministry?Answer: Most of our pastors are bivocational.  Some raise their support from congregations and individual Christians.  Funding and giving are two of our biggest issues.  People come out of the institutional church and join us thinking there is no need to give any longer.  We have to rewire them to give out of grace to a mission rather than support of an institution.Question: What do you think will hold your movement together over the long haul?

Answer: Jesus. I know that is clique, but it is what we think we do it.  We aren’t a church planting movement, we are a disciplining movement. We’re not interested in how many more house churches can we plant, but how many people can we disciple to be like Jesus. The key is longevity is to train leaders so if they move they aren’t lost and can start new groups wherever they go.  America is a churched nation- everyone has some view of what a church looks like. So the house church needs explaining. When they get it, they will talk about it with all of their friends.  

Question: What question haven’t I asked you that I should have?

Answer: I think getting more clarity on the relationship between denominations and the house church movement is essential.  In the beginning our denomination supported our work with some start up money but as the project developed the denomination found it difficult to figure out how to relate to us since we didn’t resemble anything near an institution.  Denominations need to continue thinking through the relationship with the institutional church to avoid the “us” versus “them” problem.

According to Henningfield most of the house churches are still along denominational lines. This fact surprised me.  

Leadership and the New Science, Margaret Wheatly
Kicking Habits,  Tom Bandy
Servant Leadership, Robert Greenleaf  
Growing Up Digital, Don Tapscott 
Growing Spiritual Redwoods, Tom Bandy & Bill Easum
The Continuing Conversion of the Church, Darrell Guder
The Missional Church, Darrell Guder
Difusion of Innovations, Evertt Rogers 
God’s Missionary People, Van Engen 
The Birth  of the Chaoric Generation, Dee Hoch 
Future Perfect, Davis Stanley
Steinbron, Melvin The Lay Driven Church
Heifetz, Ronald Leadership Without Easy Answers
Cordeiro,Wayne Doing Church as a Team
Ogden, The New Reformation
Townsend, Five-Star Leadership