Our Story

In an effort to better lead Ironworks, Sarah and I decided to attend “Turbo-Training” at the Village Church. The training class is focused on helping small-group leaders sharpen their existing skills and acquire new ones in leading prayer & sharing, Bible study, and worship. Although the training is focused on helping leaders of TVC home fellowship groups, we thought it would be a great fit for helping us learn to lead our New Jersey small group.

Today was the introductory class which offered a fascinating perspective on the Village Church’s philosophy on small groups. Scott Greider–one of the “coaches” for small group ministry–noted that because our church doesn’t own a building in the city, they tend to view small groups as absolutely critical to the health of the church. This struck me as profoundly Biblical. Shortly after the disciples receive the Holy Spirit in Acts 2, the early church was suffering from persecution, making it practically impossible to meet together in a central location. It’s also largely believed that Timothy pastored a few dozen home churches (as opposed to one, monolithic congregation) in Ephesus.

The identity of a church around 50 or 100 AD had to be found in its people, not its stuff.

For whatever reason, the 21^st century American church has lost touch with this idea. “Come to our services,” we say. “Play basketball in our gymnasium! Ride in our elevators! Observe our monumental cathedral and participate in our nationally-competing choir! Eat in our Saddleback ShallowCreek®-branded Taco Bell and Pizza Hut! Shop in our three-story bookstore (complete with gourmet coffee shop)! Our 7,500-member congregation is the largest bastion of Christian culture this side of Heaven–surely God is pleased with our elephantine worship services!”

We raise funds for building additions to accommodate ever-greater entertainments. We tear up the ground to lay foundations for Christian mini-malls. We throw concerts to raise awareness for our products.

“Come for the singing; stay for the low, low discount prices!”

But Peter’s church and Timothy’s church had no choice but to be defined by the individual relationships among the Christians. They simply had nothing else to demonstrate before the world–no building funds, no marketing campaigns, no t-shirts.

Just relationships. And having people over a lot.

But the power that was displayed by this unbranded, dedicated group of people! Lives were being changed. Families were reconciling. People were rejecting their stubborn selfishness and replacing it with a concern for the broken-hearted. No one in those budding churches had anything else to occupy their time but caring about and investing their lives in other people.

And, that’s just it, isn’t it? If we’re not taking care of the deep, unspoken needs of people, what’s the point? We’re just another competitor in the marketplace, peddling our wares in the hopes of turning a buck. “To the praise and glory of God!”–yeah, sure.

Sarah and I are so thankful to be attending a church that approaches this truth with integrity. We’re looking forward to see what these next weeks in training have in store for us.

“I was young and I needed the money”
“I had money, and I needed more money”
“I was filthy rich–all I wanted was love. And a little more money…”

–Steve Taylor, Cash Cow (A Rock Opera In Three Small Acts)

The past several Bible studies that I’ve led at Ironworks have had to do with this whole notion of what roles women play in the Christian church. This has certainly been the biggest challenge for me as a teacher and a small-group leader in that it involves tactfully navigating highly contentious issues.

On the one hand, I’m flirting with an idea of equality that would instantly label me as a flaming liberal and considered theologically weak in some circles. For, indeed, the churches that have most quickly espoused complete equality of the sexes, it would seem, have just as quickly unburdened themselves of a meaningful Christology. Gender equality, one would surmise, is a slippery slope that leads inevitably to a flimsy, humanistic theology.

On the other hand, though, I risk being labeled a raging fundamentalist. To even imply that women might not be “equals” with men (whatever that means) will, in the best of situations, raise the eyebrows of some, and, in the worst, raise the ire of others. To espouse such notions would be to take seriously the scribblings of a dead religion that has only sought to dehumanize the race in an effort to maintain patriarchal power structures.

And so it goes. I exaggerate a bit only to bring out the difficulty in trying to find a true, Biblical solution to the question of how men and women function together in the church. Forget social norms for a moment. This is an issue that has been debated for hundreds of years, and I’ve yet to see a compelling argument that summarizes a cut-and-dry solution. Even in my own experience, I’ve seen several different answers to the question of equality: InterVarsity believes in complete equality of the sexes, but they’re a parachurch organization that might not be strictly bound to church dictates laid out by the Scriptures; our old church stratified men and women, determining that women were not fit to teach over men; The Village Church seems to compromise the two by allowing women to participate in every aspect of church leading, short of ordination (becoming a pastor/shepherd). In passing, I’ve also been to a funeral where a woman preached and to a wedding that was conducted by both a woman and man.

Through much prayer and study of the Scriptures in the last two months, I’ve been having a great time uncovering some of the issues and mysteries surrounding this question. It’s also made for exciting opportunities in Ironworks to engage our minds and have great conversation around the issue. I’ve also learned quite a bit about taking risks in leadership. Here are the passages we’ve looked at in the past four studies:

* Acts 18:18-28
* Galatians 3:15-29
* 1 Timothy 2
* 1 Corinthians 11:2-16

Throughout the passages, I’ve tried to maintain an overarching focus on the context of what is being said. Each of those passages have verses that, when taken out of their context, could lead to confusing or heavy-handed beliefs about what women and men should be doing in the church. However, believing that the Scriptures are consistent, our goal at Ironworks has been to read the passages in both the context of the book (i.e. What is Paul saying to Timothy? What are Priscilla and Acquilla trying to accomplish? What other instruction has Paul given to the Galatian and Corinthian churches at this point?) as well as the context of other books (i.e. Do Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 14 contradict what he said in Galatians 3?). In striving for this level of intellectual integrity, I think we’ve made some great gains in grappling with the question of how gender plays into the Kingdom.

Our most recent study was on 1 Corinthians 11, which, as it turns out, is one of the most bizarre and challenging passages on this topic. I had originally intended to give an inductive study of the passage, but, over the course of my study, found myself drowning in meanings for the passage. I didn’t get it and couldn’t understand how Paul’s words here seemed to negate everything we’d studied up to this point. I had put my fair share of preparation in (about 3-4 hours by Friday afternoon) and still had very little to show for it–it was depressing.

I did remember running across a study online that not only seemed to be a balanced study of the texts we were looking at, but also purported to resolve the dissonance of 1 Corinithians 11. When I went back and found the study (which, in and of itself, was a miracle), it was like a lifesaver had been thrown to me. I was so enthralled with it that I decided to share it with the group in its entirety. My study plan was this: spend 15 minutes doing objective group observations to effectively present the problem of the passage, spend about 30 minutes reading the lesson, and the remainder of the time in discussion.

I told everyone that I would link over to the study that was read for further reflection. As promised, it’s here: The Writings of Paul – 1 Corinthians 11 & 14. It was part of a series entitled “Women: A Biblical Perspective,” which can be found towards the bottom of this page. As far as I can tell, this study was given by a woman named Nancy Giessler, who serves on the elder board at Valley View Community Church, in Audubon, PA. I invite everyone to check out the study that we read and continue the discussion.

Now when a Christian bows before God, he can move out of this with rationality in place. The other man, man without God, if he is going to be absolutely consistent in his position, may know that he exists, but nothing else. He cannot know that anything else exists. His problem is that he cannot live so; and no man does. Man logically and rationally cannot live in this cocoon of silence. So he is immediately damned in his intellect, not just by God saying, “You are a sinner,” but by the being that he himself is. God has made him rational. He cannot move from this cocoon and yet he must–and so he is crushed by what he is. It is not just a legal act of God that says “You are guilty”–though that is there. What man is has separated him from himself. The tension is within man. On the other hand, when a Christian bows before the personal Creator for whom man’s very existence shouts aloud, then there stretches from his feet to the end of infinity a bridge of answers and reality. That is the difference.

The Christian position states two things: that God is there, this infinite-personal God; and that you have been made in his image, so you are there. There is from your feet all the way to the infinite an answer that enables you to make the first move out of your intellectual cocoon. God has spoken, and what he so teaches is a unity with what he has made. Beginning with these two things, there is a bridge stretched before you, as the moon stretches a silver bridge across the ocean, from the curve of the horizon to yourself.

Now then, the wonder is that these answers do not end simply with an abstract, bare, scholastic understanding of Being, though that would be wonderful in itself. They end in communion with the infinite-personal reference point who is there, God himself. And that is tremendous. Then you can worship. There is where true worship is found: not in stained-glass windows, candles, or altar pieces, not in contentless experiences, but in communion with the God who is there–communion for eternity, and communion now, with the infinite-personal God as Abba, Father.

—Francis Schaeffer, True Spirituality

Tom, Katie, Sarah and I got the chance last night to go see Derek Webb in a free concert in Old Bridge.

Well, at least, we thought it was a free concert. It actually turned out to be a 45 minute performance in the middle of a Monday-night church service–a service that included a meandering, 45-minute-long, largely Arminian alter-call. And, when I say meandering, I mean meandering: the guy must have pulled in at least ten different passages of Scripture and used just about every Evangelical one-liner in his repertoire. That’s the thing about Arminians: every sermon is a sales pitch. They’ll say anything in order to get you to stick around a little while longer.

(This, in contrast to our pastor who, after giving a particularly challenging message about sex last week said, “if you want to pray with someone, there will be people up front here that you can pray with, and if you want to leave, the doors are right there in the back.” Only a Calvinist would trust peoples’ lives into God’s hands like that.)

This made me mad, and I had almost entitled this blog “Evangelical Bait ‘n’ Switch Campaigns Considered Harmful,” but you get the point, and the night was still yet young.

After the service, we stuck around to get a chance to meet Derek, which paid off. This was a relatively small venue so the crowd was only a couple hundred people and mostly in high school, so by about a quarter to ten, we were able to get to talk with him in group of only a handful of people. After chatting a bit and hearing about how Derek met his wife and a bit about his tatoos, Tom, who is a freakishly jazzy guy (and still needs a blog), asked him to play Wedding Dress (lyrics, MP3). He gave the slightest moment’s hesitation as he thought it over, but consented to come back with his guitar.

After a few minutes, he came back with his Taylor twelve-string. We talked shop about his guitar for a bit and about the controversial nature of some of his latest music. He admitted that many churches he’s played for request specifically that he not play Wedding Dress. We joked at the irony that his bar venues will let him play whatever he wants, but the church would restrict his freedom to speak truth into people’s lives.

The song was beautiful and I wished briefly I’d brought the camera to capture the moment, but appreciated the added intimacy that we could enjoy without flashbulbs or camera angles. After he’d finished, we chatted a bit more. Tom asked something about how the church portrays a secular/Christian art dichotemy, eschewing the one for the other in the vain hope of “purifying” our communities. Derek noted that most Christians don’t possess the skill set to take apart “secular” music in order to discover the truth they might portray (cf. The Village Church for more discussion).

Later on, this struck me as fascinating. How is it that the church has neglected the pursuit of truth in art and literature? We, who are (supposedly) sold on the idea of a God who would stretch His hand across the silent void of time and space to communicate with mankind in the form of a text–how is it that we’ve walked away from the skills and abilities necessary to discern truths from that text? Have we, as Derek’s lyrics would seem to resonate, traded in these things for counterfeits…our comfort, our plans, or, worse yet, because we seem to know better?

I am so easily satisfied
By the call of lovers so less wild
That I would take a little cash
Over your very flesh and blood
–Derek Webb

God is not so much about prohibition as He is about transformation. —Sam Andreades

Sarah and I went to our first home-group Bible study with some people at the Village Church. It was a really great time to meet people and have some good conversation–though, sadly, the coffee was lacking.

The topic of study for tonight was Galatians 4:8-20. It reads like this in the NASB:^*

⁸ However at that time, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those which by nature are no gods. ⁹ But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how is it that you turn back again to the weak and worthless elemental things, to which you desire to be enslaved all over again? ¹⁰ You observe days and months and seasons and years. ¹¹ I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain.

Paul obviously has a bone to pick with the people at Galatia because they–for reasons that will become apparent shortly–are bent on going back to their pagan roots. By “pagan,” by the way, I mean to use the word in its factual, polytheistic, cultural sense rather than with the degrading rap that it seems to have acquired since. Paul doesn’t mince words when he describes the previous experience of the Galatians being “slavery” to this whole matter of observing particular holidays, going through ritual, and attempting to define themselves on the basis of their own religiosity. Note that this isn’t as if it’s an accident on the part of the Galatians: Paul doesn’t use the words “slip” or “stumble,” as if there were some unpredictable outside force at work here. Instead, he uses the phrase “turn back.” This was an active cultural movement on the part of the Galatian community.

The kicker comes with verse 17: “They eagerly seek you, not commendably, but they wish to shut you out so that you will seek them.” The Galatians were being led by a group of individuals (“they”) back into this same behavior which they so defiantly rejected in the past. It’s quite arguable that this was a “consipiracy” on the part of the Galatian community leaders. Now, before you get all up in arms over my reactionary interpretation of the Scripture, let’s look at the facts. A passing overview of the first four chapters of Galatians should sufficiently convince you that the Galatian church community was once a community of laws and regulations. The leaders in Galatia were people that established order on the basis of these rules–this is the role and function of the pharisee.

Then, one day when all is status quo, this guy Paul shows up–hacking and wheezing and caughing up a lung–and sets off a culture bomb: he introduces Xianity to the people. I should note in passing that I do not consider this a “bad thing.” I will argue that pharisaism–the act of a cultural élite setting a community of people in subjection to themselves on the basis of hypocritical religious observance–is a form of structural violence. Structural violence is most often used to delineate social strata by economic or racial criteria, but I am using it here in an ideological sense, which, in my opinion, is just as valid as any other.

Once Paul sets off this “bomb” in Galatia, the people begin to believe that the basis of their religious experience no longer has to be their own merit or observance. They are beginning to gain a sense of equality in Christ rather than an inequality in religious social structure. The leaders of that community are losing their grip on the society because the people are no longer in bondage to the ideas on which it was built. Imagine you’re a religio-political leader in Galatia–what are you thinking at this moment?

Fast-forward to 2003. This is Dale Lature quoting David Wienberger (with some minor editing and added emphasis):

In Small Pieces, Loosely Joined, Weinberger describes “Corporate-speak” as “bizarre”, and indeed it is. I ask the question, when does “religious or theological language” become more like “corporate speak?” When does this organizational, “let’s please all people all the time” approach become a conversation killer?

Companies talk in bizarre, stilted ways because they believe that such language expresses their perfection: omniscient, unflappable, precise, elevated, and without accent or personality. The rhetoric is as glossy and unbelievable as the photos in the marketing brochure. Such talk kills conversation. That’s exactly why companies talk that way. (p.90)

I know of a church where the pastor constantly complained about emails being sent to all the members on an email list (which consisted of people who volunteered their email addresses in order to be INCLUDED in such mailings)…The pastor also confronted the “renegade,” “unofficial” communicator of “unauthorized” emails on the matter, complaining that the emails were unwanted.

Here we have a case where a Church “official,” a “pastor,” opposes one of the earliest and still oft-used vehicles for carrying the “VOICE” which I believe is necessary to a Church sounding human and not canned. The “disclaimer” or “official” tamp on all Church email comes off very “authoritarian” and is putting itself in opposition to the mantra of the Web and online communications; and places it squarely in the tradition of companies employing “corporate speak” as a way of minimizing public discourse. This may not, and is probably not, even done as a conscious ploy to squelch anything, but merely a transference of the mechanisms of “order” and “organization” tactics employed by the business world and the corporate culture. But herein lies the problem.

Companies so “mimicked” are often not concerned with accentuating the voice of their constituents: their customers. They are devoted to the “best practices” of a culture that has become cut off from what is human. This is particularly troublesome when it works its way into Church management. Indeed, there is often a problem when “management” is the terminology used. In Church communities, conversation is not friendly to being “handled” or “managed.” Those very words smack of cover-up, avoidance, sweeping under the proverbial rug. Sometimes even “open forums” are a “strategy” meant to “appease” or be an “opiate” rather than achieve dialogue or repentance and reconciliation.

I quote this in full because of the depth of Dale’s words in light of the Galatians passage. On the one hand, we have Paul addressing his concerns with the spiritual health of a particular community because of the power and effectiveness of the voices of leadership in that community–perhaps not entirely, but to a degree that Paul addresses it with direct language. On the other hand, we have the “traditional” or “pragmatic” evangelical church of the 21^st century just aching to reproduce the leadership models of a culture they claim to shun. In so doing, they provide a climate to limit the ability for the church to communicate outside the social strata of the organization and thus an avenue to misuse the Power of Voice.

My friend Darin loved to recite this quote from John MacArthur, who used to joke about the reaction he’d get from people when he simply gave out Bibles to teach people about Xianity: “No books? No tapes? No study guides? You can’t leave that guy alone with a Bible! He might get confused!” 300-some years ago, the Catholic church attempted to convince some renegades led by Martin Luther that there was no way that the layperson was going to be able to understand the Scriptures apart from the interpretation of the church. In 2003, we find ourselves in that same position, all over again.

^*The NASB version of the Bible is, of course, brought to us by the kind folks at the Lockman Foundation who thankfully lack the copyright paranoia exhibited by some publishers.

Today I read an exciting passage that reintroduced the theological basis for Christian intellectual honesty. Perhaps as the emergent church rediscovers orthodoxy in faith, art, and culture, we will find a new platform for thinking again.

If we keep in mind 1 Corinthians 4:9, where we are told that we are “on the stage” before men and angels, we must also note what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 2:4, which is not unrelated to this: “And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power.”

In demonstration before whom? In the light of Paul’s remarks in chapter 4, it is surely not only a demonstration before the lost world, or before the church, but a demonstration before the angels, too.

This verse has been grossly misunderstood. Many would say that it teaches that there should only be a “simple” preaching of the gospel, and by the simple preaching of the gospel they may mean the simple refusal to consider the questions of our generation, and a simple refusal to wrestle with them. They contrast the simple preaching of the gospel with the attempt to give honest intellectual answers when honest questions are asked. But nothing could be further from the meaning of these words. That is “simply” not what these words are saying. What Paul is saying here is that the preaching of the gospel to simple or more “complicated” men fails in both cases if it does not include a demonstration of the Christian life, if it does not include the work of the Holy Spirit. It is not a matter of giving the simplest gospel message one can imagine, and making a complete dichotomy between faith and intellectual life. Paul is saying that no matter what kind of people you are preaching to, and no matter what terminology you need, and no matter how long the words you have to use, and whether you are speaking to the peasant or the philosopher, in every case there must be a demonstration of the power of the Spirit–of the resurrected, glorified Christ working through us.

—Francis Schaeffer, True Spirituality

Sarah and I went to the Village Church in NYC for the second time on Sunday and had an awesome time despite the 40 minute commute and $6 toll to cross through the Lincoln Tunnel.

The service was great. It was communion Sunday and the pastor gave an interesting exegesis of Ephesians 4:17-32, noting that Paul was pointing out that the Ephesians, in order to “no longer walk as the Gentiles,” were to care about each other in some rather mundane ways. Imagine: Paul was writing to people because he was concerned about how they cared about one another rather than giving them a bunch of rules and regulations. Funny that.

Sarah and I also met some people after the service. There was a booktable downstairs with some good stuff. Turns out the guy sitting behind the table was a writer for re:generation as well. He encouraged us to purchase some magazines and hang around to talk about postmodernism for a while.

The best part of the day, though, was taking a lunch invitation to hang with a crowd of 10-or-so people from church. I had the chance to sit across from a young lady, Jan, who had become a Christian about two years ago and was wrestling with some of her outside-in perspectives. It was neat because we were able to discuss a bit about the whole Christian-culture mindset that comes out of traditional evangelicalism. You know, it’s that mindset that makes you think, hey, maybe Skillet’s latest album really didn’t suck.

I explained to Jan my theory that evangelicals pride themselves on their separateness from the world. “Don’t you go consume those movies or that music,” they say, “or you’ll see sin start to creep into your life and take hold of your mind.” So, when we do, we create this huge cultural vacuum. I used to think that the Christian bookstore was great when I was in high school. I mean, in a world where I’m only supposed to consume all things Christian, the Christian bookstore was like Disneyland. I’ve since gotten over that, realizing that there’s as much truth to be found in Aaron Lewis‘ lyrics as there is in Aaron Tate’s.

On the way home, Sarah and I had the opportunity to sit and digest everything from the day. I think we’re both excited to see more opportunities for conversation and reflection together.

I discovered TheoBlogical today (via Dave Winer).

Dale Lature: The Conversations the Churches Need. Meanwhile, conversations are conspicuously absent on Church sites, Denominational sites, and almost any kind of Church related site. Where forums are offered, they are not actively linked and promoted and encouraged. Churches say that they emphasize laity and then betray this philosophy by non-verbal, contextual clues such as putting the pulpit at the center—putting the sermon at the highest point of emphasis, publishing the articles of staff to the exclusion of stories of experiences and opinions of the laity. The Websites of Churches emphasize brochure stuff like Worship Service times, pictures of the staff, directions to the Church, and some newsletters (although the Web version is often more than a month behind the version of the Monthly newsletter already in the hands of members).

The Thunderbird project is progressing nicely, providing builds for Linux and Mac OS X this weekend. I can’t wait ’til I can get rid of Outlook Express!

20 pages into this paper and a few more to go…:)