A recipe for the New Christian Era

or A Philosophy for cultural transformation In America.

Introduction

  What is a recipe for the New Christian era?

This paper is not a book, nor a definitive argument or thesis.  In fact, it’s not a finished product at all.  it is, instead a vehicle for ongoing dialogue among the church of God.  It is possible that this dialogue will prove fruitless and not worth pursuing beyond the first small circles into which I introduce it, or it may just be that it will prove of use because of those first circles.  The dialogue and argument engendered by these first dialogues may serve to crystalize and articulate the arguments tentatively approached here such that a finished product or, perhaps more to the point, a larger ongoing dialogue involving larger segments of our culture both in and out of the church may be the result. 

This is not a “how to” paper.  Perhaps it would better have been called, the ingredients for a New Christian Era, as it intends not to explain so much how to create the Christian era, but only what ingredients are necessary for it’s preparation. It is, in fact, inherent in the recipe that only through dialogue and appropriate interaction can we actually arrive at the proper recipe.  In this paper the ingredients are put in terms of paradigms.    A paradigm is the pattern or model we use for contemplating a certain idea. It is basically the way we think about something.  For the New Christian Era to begin there must be a change of mind, a shifting of paradigms about certain ideas related to the church. There are six basic paradigms which this paper will address.  This paper will make very little effort to persuade people of the necessity or even correctness of these paradigm shifts for two reasons.  1) It is hoped the dialogue in consequence of this paper will itself cause the necessary shifts or prove them irrelevant and 2) Many segments of the church are already making or have made these shifts, and this paper will serve in those cases to simply affirm those changes, explain their overall importance to a cultural transformation, and perhaps reveal some of the overlooked implications. 

What is a New Christian Era?

To those who are made uncomfortable by the term New Christian Era, and even from many who support it they undoubtedly picture some kind of American Christian Theocracy in which legislation is drawn directly from Christian Scripture and the worship of Jesus Christ becomes law.  Let me be as clear as possible by stating that I believe such a theocracy in America is not only unrealistic but so contrary to my understanding of the scriptural principles of Christian influence and conversion as to be repugnant to me.  The Founding Fathers--even those who were, like the puritan John Adams, unambiguously Christian--clearly understood the necessity of real tolerance and freedom of choice in worship as a Christian and scriptural principle   They knew that one can be firmly convinced in the exclusive correctness of their own faith and still see it as part of that faith to let people choose to be wrong.  This tradition in fact is clearly God’s own strategy dating from the Garden of Eden, and as with Adam and Eve this does not deny the very serious consequences of ones belief, but simply acknowledges the futility and latent hostility in forced conversion.

The New Christian Era is not then a code phrase for the theocratic domination of the Christian right.  It is also not the idea of the pedantic domination of the Christian right in the educational system, in the media or in population reeducation.  In other words, it is also a repugnant idea to suggest that the new Christian era will be arrived at by propaganda and the inhibition of people’s free thought and expression of that thought.  Once again this is not the way of God revealed in scripture and once again the framers of the bill of rights paved the way for us with explicit recognition of that freedom.  In the spirit of the reformation and the enlightenment, they seemed to believe that information, dialogue and explorations were not nearly as dangerous for people as a lack of the same.   There is a grand tradition in Christianity of exploration, free thinking and discussion.  According to proverbs,   “it is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of Kings.”  A new Christian Era would not inhibit questions and explorations, but would provide an atmosphere best suited to explore these questions rationally and wisely.

The New Christian Era then is neither domination politically, nor pedantically, but it is a domination philosophically and ideologically. Again, this is not by force or coercion, but by a culture which has been so salted and influenced by the church of God that the common underlying propositions, the presuppositions under which the American society functions, are once again consistent and compatible with those found in scripture. This is, again, not to say that the scriptural propositions are foisted upon unbelievers despite the illogic of such propositions, but rather because logic and reason flourish best within a framework not hindered by the naturalistic and humanistic philosophies of the modern era, or the nihilistic philosophies of the postmodern era.  For those unclear with these philosophic terms, the distinctions in this picture should become more clear as we continue.

Before launching into the ingredients (paradigms) for our New Christian Era, there are two more basic premises which deserve to be briefly mentioned as they are also presuppositions upon which this document is founded. 

First is that the power, potential and Glory of the church of God is neither dead nor dormant.  The same Holy Spirit which empowered the early church still lives and dwells in us.  We are still part of the same church of the living God which Paul called the “pillar and foundation of the truth.”     The same organism which has the ability to salt a whole culture and transform a whole world is the one to which every child of God is integrally connected  by  “every supporting ligament.”   The Glorious call of the church has not been rescinded and the unimaginable power of the church has not waned.  America may indeed be a post Christian culture, but this does not mean Christianity’s influence is no longer felt.  Charities, Hospitals, educational institutions, political traditions, and countless other organizations and entities all bear the mark of its influence.  The existence of two sides to the cultural war is itself proof that our country has not abandoned Judeo-Christian principles all together.  The war has not yet been won by either side.  The church still stands in the way of complete victory for those who fight for a nihilistic or naturalistic world view.

Second is that in America at least, the church has far underachieved its potential.  Though its influence is undoubtedly felt within the core and foundation of our country, it’s influence in the most practical of ways seems to be waning rather than increasing.  According to Jack Dennison in City Reaching,   in terms of direct growth and influence the church has not even held steady with population growth.   In terms of less directly measurable, but perhaps even more significant indications of influence the church fares little better.   While the cultural war has not yet been lost, neither has it been won, and there is disturbing evidence that we may be losing ground.  Briefly, the church simply does not seem to have the influence in America that we understand it ought to have.

Part 1:  Cultural Transformation and the six paradigms.

You are the salt of the earth.  But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again?  it is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men.  You are the light of the world.  A city on a hill cannot be hidden.  Neither do people light a lamp nd put it under a bowl.  Instead they put it on its stand, and it give light to everyone in the house.  In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your father in heaven.

Paradigm 1:Renewed vision for the local church and the mission of church planting as the vehicle of cultural transformation.

The Wrong solutions

In our attempts to regain influence in our culture, two reasons for our missed potential rise above the others: The wrong vehicle, and the wrong mission.

The Wrong Vehicle:

The above verse (From Matthew 5:13-14) probably won’t find many dissenters among the Christian world.  Most Christians of any age seem to have at least a rudimentary understanding that God desires to do His will through his people.  But from here, we enter into our first problem of paradigm. Scripture doesn’t really emphasize God’s work through his people in all their individual glory, but instead through the church. It is the church of Christ which will overcome the Gates of Hell , it is the church of God which is the pillar and foundation of truth.    Likely, you will answer that we are the church, that the church is made up of individuals.  To this of course, I agree, but I must stress that here, as in most things of significance, the whole is greater than the sum of it’s parts.  The church, while made up of the people of God, is more than just the people who make it up.  The church is God’s divine organism for influence in our culture.  

As an illustration of the difference in perspective, let me turn to a scenario which may be familiar to many.  In an effort to reclaim lost territory,a church may identify certain cultural areas where individual Christian influence should be greater felt and then make a push for Christian individuals to move into these areas.  For example, one church may  encourage everyone to be politically involved, another may push individuals toward becoming educators, while still others encourage the congregation towards the arts, or journalism, or missions.  While we certainly need Christians in these areas, the problem at times has been the all or nothing approach. Through an overemphasis on one cultural institution or another, a church may leave those with no desire or gifting in these areas feeling without a mission and, even worse, may end up with people in these areas who should never have been there at all.   In my own heritage, the association to which I belong once taught that every mature christian male must become a church pastor--or elder as we called them. While in this case the focus seemed to be on the church institution,  the problem is actually very similar to the other scenario.  Instead of building mature Christians who will salt the culture as they intersect with it according to their own experiences and gifts and calling, we are focusing less upon the maturity, and more upon the “more important” vehicle of politics, or education, or in our case, church leadership.   Instead of any real saturation of Christians in these areas we end up with a few key people upon whom everything seems to depend.  I suspect we’ve all had the experience at some point of being encouraged, and perhaps feeling, that voting for this person, or supporting that artist or business is the most important work we can do as a christian.

I am not suggesting that the church should not or will not influence through these other mediums. Undoubtedly, as I will later argue, it is essential that we touch the culture in order to change it, and this obviously means being involved in politics, education and so on.  But, what we see happening in examples like the one above is not truly an attempt to salt our culture via the church, but to salt our culture via politics, or art, or journalism...  Notwithstanding the fact that we have attempted to place churchmen and women into these positions, it is only as a means of getting “good people” into the vehicles we believe are actually responsible  for shaping our culture. Often the church’s actions  indicate a belief more in the efficacy of having Christians in these institutions than in having more christians in the church.  In fact, the idea of changing a secular world by having more Christians in the church may even sound nonsensical.  As we’ll see below this may have more to do with a lack of clarity regarding the church’s mission than for any other reason.  Nonetheless, scripture does seem to emphasize the importance  of Christians as part of one body not merely in theory, but more so in practice.  Much is made in scripture of the gathering of christians and the power in such gathering.  For example take Matthew 18:18-19.  Regardless of the fine points and potential disputes these verse may generate it is at least generally agreed that these verses are about authority.  Jesus, however, is indicating that this authority is not found in the individual Christian, but in the gathering of christians. Although it may seem sometimes wiser to recognize the ethereal, all inclusive nature of the church of God, the idea of a gathering of Christians is essential to Paul’s use of the term church.  It is difficult, if not impossible, to apply or even understand Paul’s exhortations regarding the church--its structure, its organization, its leadership and worship and so on--in any other way.  Although it is my contention that both Jesus and Paul reference the importance of local gatherings for impact and “saltiness”  it is not necessary to take it purely as a theological point.  In practical terms, when the local church’s mission is clearly defined and understood, the exclusive potency of the church in this area becomes evident.  So what is that mission?

The Wrong Mission

One might argue that the church’s mission is not cultural influence. In fact, I agree.  I do not believe the church’s mission is cultural transformation.  I do, however, believe that a church clear on its mission will inevitably produce cultural transformation. Such transformation, then becomes a good indicator of the clarity and success of a church’s mission. Salt may not have a mission to flavor food, but it is inherent in its nature that it will do so if conditions are right (salt on the steak, instead of in the salt shaker and so on.).  Likewise the church’s mission, while other than cultural transformation, is of the sort which inevitably results in a salty church.   This all still begs the questions, however, what is that mission which makes us so salty?

The one thing we might say which only the church can do is preach the Gospel.  Perhaps our mission is evangelism: preaching the good news, revealing the truth.  After all,  Jesus says to be salt and light. 

Unfortunately there is nothing to indicate in history or scripture that to preach unflinchingly the good news leads to cultural transformation.  In fact, many churches and other entities are preaching the good news, unflinchingly regularly.  You might still argue that is our only mission and as for the culture we must leave that to God, or perhaps we ought to pursue such cultural transformation through those other vehicles of politics, education and so on.  However, if the mere preaching of the gospel is the mission than aren’t there those who have done so more effectively than the local churches and congregations in each town?  Why not leave this work to people like Billy Graham and others with gifts of evangelism and preaching?  One could argue that the para-church and mission agencies which have arisen to promote evangelism have done a better job than many local churches.  This line of reasoning may in fact be precisely what has lead to a lack of vision or mission in many churches. 

Certainly to preach the truth unflinchingly is a significant part of the call of the church, but does this simply mean the evangelistic crusades, the altar calls and door to door witnessing?  Is there not a mission to which the church is uniquely suited? 

Let me turn our previous assertion the other way around:  Jesus says to be light and salt.  Are these simply reiterations of the same evangelistic mission, or could they be two distinct parts of that mission?   Not by way of proof, but by way of illustration, consider the following story from 2 Kings 2:19-21

The men of the city said to Elisha, “Look, our lord, this town is well situated, as you can see, but the water is bad, and the land is unproductive. “

“Bring me a new bowl,” he said, “and put salt in it.” 

So they brought it to him.  Then he went out to the spring and threw the salt into it saying, “This is what the Lord says, ‘ I have healed this water.  Never again will it cause death or make the land unproductive.’”

Note the use of salt in this story.  It is the vehicle to return life, productivity and usefulness to both the water and the land surrounding it.  Salt has historically been perceived as a preservative, a seasoning and a restorative.  It influences and heals that which it touches.  It prolongs life and adds zest.  Perhaps it is for these reasons and its consequential value that Leviticus records many sacrifices to God which were to be attended with salt. 

Salt is different than light.  Light touches only lightly that which it contacts.  It’s contact is ethereal, almost distant.  It pushes away darkness, and reveals things.  Light is making truth apparent, revealing things as they are, but salt touches and that which it touches is changed by the touching.  No cultural divide separates our understanding of salt and light from Jesus listeners.  In fact, it’s value would have been even more pronounced in these regards to his listeners.

The clearest and most direct statement of the church’s mission in scripture is surely the Great Commission.   The Great Commission is to preach the Gospel to all nations, teaching them all that I have commanded you.  Certainly it is clear that there is more involved here than the mere preaching of anything.  To teach all that Jesus taught is to teach life itself, to model holiness, to serve with compassion.  In short, the Great Commission is not merely one of preaching, but one of discipleship.  We are to raise up disciples, followers of all that Jesus taught.  It is by conversion yes, but further by making disciples, mature members of Christ’s church, that we most greatly can influence the culture.  Rather than by pointing every one in the church toward some other vehicle of change, how much more effective would it be to raise up mature disciples who infiltrate whatever area of the culture they already intersect. The obvious question at this point is what precisely makes a disciple and with the reader’s indulgence, I will beg that question for the moment. The other five paradigms deal extensively with some of the things we must teach and do in order to make disciples, but for now the point is simply that making disciples is the core mission of the church. 

Putting it together

Note that if the mission of the church is to make disciples of Christ, we can easily see that no para church organization or missionary--in fact, no other entity-- can do this as effectively as the local church.  Local churches are uniquely equipped and designed for just this thing.   Note further that if it is through this mission of making disciples that the church becomes and remains salty--touching, preserving and healing the community and culture around us, that no other entity--not political institutions, not legislation, not education, nor arts--can ever hope to accomplish such pervasive and salting influence as the church may accomplish.  Jack Dennison in his book City Reaching explains such cultural transformation on a city by city basis very clearly when he says

Transformation is also not about the creation of a Christian Society where the values of the Kingdom are politically imposed...Transformation is about waging spiritual warfare with the enemy and seeing the church of Jesus Christ used as an instrument to shift the balance of power in that war.  It’s about seeing the church exercising influence and authority through its life of holiness, love and compassion for a lost and dying world.

Transformation is an inside out and downside-up process.  It is about reaching a critical mass of believers who  are so empowered by the gospel of Christ that they change everything they touch--family, workplace, schools, business.  As this critical mass is achieved, the power of the living God brings significant changes in the problems that plague our cities, today--poverty, crime, addictions, gangs, divorce, violence-- and a dramatic increase in things that characterize the kingdom of God--mercy, justice, prosperity (especially for the poor) and compassion.

Clearly when a sufficient number of believers become mature, dynamic, disciples of Christ, their presence in Government, the arts, business and other systems in society should be felt--will be felt.  The exciting reality is that in America such human and material resources are more than adequate for the task... What is needed is a radical transformation of individual believers and local congregations in order that we might begin to see transformation in the city.

The idea of church planting sounds almost ludicrous to many of us in these days of jaded expectations and cynicism.  Many of us have been hurt by congregations or leaders of congregations.  We’ve learned to believe in the picture presented to us daily by our popular media, that the church is irrelevant, without influence.  We tell ourselves that the church is the people of God and not the institutional constructs which do nothing to empower the people of God.  We can remain aloof from the organization Christ instituted while consoling ourselves with the thought that we are all part of the organism.  Careful reading of scripture, however, indicates that Paul and the other epistle writers rarely spoke of the church in such ethereal terms.  Virtually every command, every instruction, every correction made, as well as every promise, every blessing and every vision inspired for “the church” was directed to a specific local church, a body of believers not ethereally connected but geographically and structurally connected in fellowship  with the practical ability to plan, organize, and enact change upon the culture. Certainly, the thought of more buildings going up, of more self righteous or self seeking institutions does nothing for our inspiration, but if we can renew the vision for planting churches which are actively making disciples then real saturation can take place.  A little thought should reveal that if the church’s mission is to make more and more disciples and the church is the vehicle of influence for cultural transformation through this disciple making, then the planting of more and more churches with this vision is a necessity.   Thus the first indispensable ingredient in our recipe for the New Christian era is

Paradigm 1:  Renewed vision for the local church and the mission of church planting as the vehicle of cultural transformation.

****************************************************************************************************

Paradigm 2:  A recognition of the church’s serious obligation to disciple and to offer serious ordered lifelong learning.

A curious thing has happened to the concept of discipleship in that it has been separated from the idea of education.  We have seminaries and colleges to educate us in the study and meaning of scripture, and then we count on churches to teach Christians how they ought to live their lives.  The curious thing is that these two ideas were never meant to be separated.  It leaves many churches feeling skeptical of seminaries, which seem to fill students with knowledge while not building character or life skills in the process.  In reaction to this there are in fact many churches which have divorced themselves from the seminary systems altogether raising up leaders through an apprenticeship from within the congregation.  This has, it is true, produced some leaders with good skills and character, but in many cases also a woeful lack of biblical scholarship.  We excuse this by demeaning the idea of scholarship itself, but the truth is many too many church leaders are not versed in scripture as they ought to be.  It is clear that the early church leaders saw the teachings of scripture and the proper understanding of the core doctrines of Christianity as inseparable from a lifestyle of holiness and character.  These two concepts must be taught in a way which makes this connection more clear.  The only reason for continuing to keep these two ideas in separate institutions would be if one were not able to accomplish both goals of sound hermeneutics and life wisdom.  Many men and women have made the case far better than I can for the church being the one entity which is in fact best equipped for all the aspects of training required for church leadership.  So, for the fuller arguments I would direct your attention to the bibliography in the back.  (In fact, that bibliography contains suggested readings for each of these 6 paradigms).  This, however is the core of this new paradigm: That the church is perceived as the educational and training entity for Christians.  No church has the freedom to not train its members in the core teachings and doctrines, as well as the core imperatives and commands, of scripture.  This idea is so foreign to some and in fact may sound overwhelming to many small churches that I strongly encourage the help of entities designed for just this purpose.  A reference to the bibliography will again point one in the direction of such help.

Let me only briefly emphasize two additional points in regards to this paradigm.

1)  To return to the idea of salt, Jesus cautions against the church losing it’s saltiness.  When salt touches food, it does not lose it’s distinctiveness but adds its own flavor to the food.  Similarly we are called not to lose our distinctiveness.  How can we influence culture, rub shoulders with those who are not of the church and still maintain our distinctiveness?  First, it is clear we must determine what truly makes us distinct.  In a proposition which I will elucidate in a later paradigm, I argue that we often misidentify our distinct qualities.  We tend to emphasize things which do not really make us distinct at all.  Our discipleship must focus first upon the things which truly make us distinct, which are unique to the Christian world.  It is imperative than, that a church must identify those areas of doctrine and teaching which are of this distinctive salty flavor and not compromise on such things.  Some of the remaining paradigms, if they prove correct will undoubtedly  guide what some of those things ought to be; likewise various discussions among local churches will guide what some of these ought to be, but certainly we can all agree that the core teachings of the Gospel, what Paul calls indisputable, must be preserved.   The most core teaching, the center to which all discipleship must point, the most distinct point of Christianity is of course, our allegiance to Christ Himself.  All discipleship must continually point the disciple back to this point.

2) In our discipleship we must return people, not merely to talking points, to an agreed set of doctrine, but back to scripture.  We must lead people back into an exploration of scripture.  We must teach them how to read, how to read well, and how to analyze and think about what they read.  We must teach them not only to apply, but to dwell on, to immerse, to meditate and understand scripture. We must find ways to regularly inspire, encourage and teach such hermeneutics and exegesis for every member of our church who is desirous of growth.  We must disciple not only perceived church leaders but all men and women in such a way that they can’t help but salt the culture around them.  Along with the emphasis on scripture, it must be remembered that the goal is to disciple in such a way that the connection between the truth’s of scripture and one’s own life are more clearly seen.  In short, we must teach not just knowledge, but faith, and not just faith, but faith in God and God’s wisdom as revealed in scripture.  We must return seriously to the business of discipleship, training and teaching Christians scripture and life lived in the shadow of the cross.  So our second indispensable ingredient is

Paradigm 2:  A recognition of the church’s serious obligation to disciple and to offer serious ordered lifelong learning.

****************************************************************************************************

Paradigm 3:  Continued Awakening to Grace and Freedom and the truth about righteousness.

In the early 90’s Chuck Swindol published a book in which he explained a movement of God sweeping the American Church similar in scope to the Great Awakening.  He called it, and the book, The Grace Awakening.  In the last decade, it does seem to be that many formerly legalistic churches and, in some cases, whole denominations and movements, have indeed made a very important shift from legalism to Grace.  At this time, though the transition seems incomplete.  Although the defense of Grace has become a topic of accepted discussion in many more circles, the clarity of what Grace is and what the practical implications are is less pervasive.  As Dr. Swindol says in his book,

To spend time debating how grace is received or how much commitment is necessary for salvation, without getting into what it means to live by grace and enjoy the magnificent freedom it provides, quickly leads to a counterproductive argument.  It becomes little more than another tedious trivial pursuit where the majority of God’s people spend days looking back and asking, “how did we receive it?” instead of looking ahead and announcing, “Grace is ours... let’s live it!”  Deny it or debate it and we kill it.  My plea is that we claim it and allow it to set us free.  When we do grace will become what it was meant to be---really amazing!

There have been many attempts to define God’s Grace.  It’s important to understand that each attempt is only an approximation at something which is so integrally tied to the very nature of God.  Nonetheless here are what seem to me very briefly to be key elements.

1)  Grace is God’s desire and Power to do good.  It is not only His benevolence but His ability to carry out this benevolence.  Many verses speak more of God’s grace in regards to His power, than in regards to His benevolence.

2)Grace is a character quality of God and as such is immovable by our actions.  it is as inherently part of God as is His omniscience, or His omnipotence.  Nothing, absolutely nothing, we do increases, decreases or in any other way changes God’s Grace.  In other words we can do nothing to make him any more or less benevolent in feeling or ability toward us.  It is freely given without merit.  We do not earn more grace by our actions, nor do we limit God’s abilities by our failures.  As a quality of God it is already unlimited.  God’s desire and power to do good to us are not limited by anything we do or don’t do or by anything at all.

Grace  also has much to do with how we view holiness and godliness and how we teach what it means to be a Christian.  Consider Jesus’ words in Matthew 5 again. 

What does Jesus mean when he speaks of losing one’s saltiness?  We must understand and examine what it is that makes us, as a church, distinct from the world.  Salt does not lose its saltiness upon contact with the food.  So too the church must hold to it’s distinctiveness.  Discipleship is first and foremost about teaching and clarifying this distinctiveness to those who choose to follow Christ.  All too often, however, we identify the wrong distinctives.  We have a tendency to think it has something to do with living in a greater state of denial than the world.  We think somehow our saltiness is in the way we do church, have worship, or dress. Issues of behavior, moral imperatives, cultural comfort, mode of worship, level of enthusiasm or zeal and so forth, are things which are not so distinct but in fact fairly common across many otherwise differing faiths.  Issues of tradition may hold us distinct from others even in our own faith, but surely these are not the things about which Christ was concerned.  

First and foremost our distinction is not in what we do or how we do it, but in whom we serve.  It sounds almost ridiculously obvious to say the first distinction of a disciple is whom they follow.  Obvious or not, we tend to forget.  It is not our behavior that makes us distinct, it is our allegiance to Christ as our only God and savior.  This allegiance we can maintain without fear of compromise while still making contact with the world since he commands us to do precisely this. 

The second order of distinction is what we believe.  The truths of the Gospel are more to the core of who we are than the actions we perform, no matter how sacred or commanded. 

The way we disciple others reflects our convictions on the important distinctives.  Do we teach that Holiness is a matter of the do’s and don’ts, and that Godliness is a matter of being like God?  Scripture teaches that Holiness refers to whom we belong and Godliness refers to a sense of His constant presence.  it is much harder to teach people to be devoted to God, to pursue the Life of Christ, to walk by faith than it is to teach people to prescribe to a certain transcribed set of policies.  It is, in fact, easier to live by a prescribed set of policies than by consistent dependance upon God, step by step, moment by moment. Easier to lead, easier to follow.  Nonetheless the  call of the church in discipleship is to teach devotion to Christ, not to right behavior.

Grace is integrally connected with Freedom:  The freedom to be in the presence of God without condemnation or shame; the freedom to love others without fear of our own reputation or status; the freedom to love others without being pulled down by the baggage of our own misplaced desires and hungers; the freedom to hunger and know that the hungry are filled; Freedom in knowing we have the holiness, Righteousness, love, purpose, family and value we so earnestly desire.  This freedom must also be integral to discipleship.  This new vision-- of Holiness, of Grace, of Freedom to serve for the sake of serving rather than for what we earn, of freedom to live the life of Christ-- is an essential paradigm to reaching a culture.  For without this understanding we will never find the freedom to touch the culture intimately without compromise.  And salt must touch the food in order to change it.  So our third indispensable ingredient is

Paradigm 3:  Continued Awakening to Grace and Freedom and the truth about righteousness.

****************************************************************************************************

Paradigm 4:  We must move from being demanding to serving.

I suspect the average non-church going American would be surprised to know that we are disciples of a man who said, “I come not to be served, but to serve.”.  Instead the church seems to have a reputation for demanding:  demanding money, demanding time, demanding obedience, demanding attendance, demanding respect... We may think of ourselves as generous when we adjust our Sunday Morning service to be more comfortable to them, but we still expect them to come to us.  Truth is, our influence will never be what it ought to be as long as we continue to stand on the side of the road and call out for them to come to us.  On the contrary, it was the needy  who stood on the side of the road and called, and Jesus who came.  No matter how clever the marquee, how polished the ad, how friendly the service, there will be those who will never come to us.  We must recognize that our place in the community is not one of demanding attention and respect, but one of service to the community.  The churches that genuinely serve their community, looking not just for ways to gain the communities trust and attention, but with a genuine heart to minister to the community, these are the churches that become salt to their community. 

Such an attitude will be more likely to the degree that each of the preceding paradigms are true core values and convictions.  Churches with the security of knowing their authority and responsibility, with the discipleship in place to produce members mature enough to serve, and with the grace and freedom to go where others might not go, due to self-righteousness or fear of some kind of spiritual contamination will find themselves free to love, to serve, to salt.  There is so much that could be said here, but  once again, my goal is not to persuade, but to introduce and affirm these paradigms.  For some of the best ideas on how to move a church this direction, I refer you once again to the bibliography in the back of this paper. 

Bottom line is that a disciple is like his master and our master gave up His own preferences, comforts and even His life for the sake of those who scorned, mocked, ridiculed and ignored Him.  Many churches spend untold time and research identifying what would appeal to their community, what will bring them in the doors, what will get their attention nd make a service more comfortable.  What if we spent as much time learning what the hurts and genuine needs in our community were?  What if we spent as much time becoming masters of meeting those needs, loving and cherishing the lost?  It is true many churches do these things now.  If more churches were doing these things than we would be able to hear these words from our Lord in reference to our own communities:  I have healed this water.  Never again will it cause death or make the land unproductive. 

So our fourth indispensable ingredient is:

Paradigm 4:  We must move from being demanding to serving

****************************************************************************************************

Paradigm 5--The importance of active learning over “here’s the answer” learning

Our culture has adopted a mode of education which is one of passing on information.  Certainly information needs to be passed on, and this we do obsessively through books, seminars, and  lectures.  However, there is evidence that perhaps gathering and even retaining information is not really the same as learning.  In fact, our own common sense often tells us this.  Chances are very good that as you look back upon the things you’ve truly learned, you’ll find it’s not been as often from the sermons and lectures, as it has been from interaction with others and with life and a process of discovery.  Dialectic learning is a phrase which means learning through dialogue or through tension.  Socrates is a philosopher who felt that the best way to learn things was to be constantly asking questions and than asking questions about those questions.  It was the process of dialogue and discovery and exploration that his pupil Plato intended to capitalize upon when he founded the first university. His idea was not that experts would pass on information to other experts, but that teachers would lead students in a process of discovery and active learning.  Scientists, who owe a large debt to many of these first philosophers, also capitalize upon this idea of discovery and exploration.  To these men and women, learning is an activity.

On the other hand, our culture’s idea of learning tends to be very passive.  We have become used to the idea in our culture that whatever the question is, someone has the answer.  Got a question, find the expert.  Ask the expert and receive the answer.  Sometimes, completely unjustified credence is given to the answers that one identified as an expert gives.  Unfortunately, the church has adopted in many respects this same idea of education.  Got a theological question, a moral conundrum?--ask the expert.  The pastor is expected to have spent the untold hours in scripture, prayer and gleaning of these answers. Not only is this not always the case, but if it were, only the pastor would truly benefit!  Often discipleship becomes nothing more than a learning of facts and information.  However, this is neither the way Jesus practiced discipleship, nor the way of Paul, nor the clear intent of scripture.  Many churches have long recognized the importance of small groups not just for the value of fellowship but for discipleship.  It is through the interaction with life and other believers that the connections between scripture and life are best understood.  Many preachers are beginning to realize that any serious attempt to disciple through the Sunday Morning teaching is probably foolhardy.  Certainly some new information can be passed on, but the idea that we can personally reach each individual struggling from their different vantage point at different stages of growth in a mere thirty to forty minute teaching broadly thrown out to tens of people all at the same time is wishful thinking at best.  Think to the best sermons you’ve heard in such a context.  I would venture a guess that their greatest influence in your life has been one of motivation, not instruction.  Sunday Mornings are great for inspiration, for fellowship and celebration and motivation.  They make great pep rallies and boosters for believers, but the true discipleship has got to occur within the context of discussion, exploration and discovery. 

We must learn to embrace the questions and mysteries

All too often the worlds view of the church is that we profess to know all the answers.  All too often we seek to perpetuate such an attitude by claiming knowledge and certainty of things which are neither biblical nor certain.  We suffer as a whole from a fear of questions.  We ought to be greatly encouraged by anyone who enters our churches (or whom we encounter in our service to them) with genuine questioning. We place ourselves unnecessarily on a more distant footing from our fellow searchers for God,w hen we pretend we no longer have to search. We only appear shallow when we deny the most poignant questions we all share--questions about meaning, truth, our place in it all, God and so on.  Every Christian of any length has come to realize that, as much as we do know, there is still plenty we do not. We must return to the position of being journeymen on this road of discovery.  We certainly have been revealed great truth in the scriptures and we must not be ashamed of that, but neither must we be ashamed to admit that God still remains in many respects strange and sometimes even aloof and distant to us.  Oddly by not encouraging discussion and dialectic learning, by feeding answers instead of promoting questions, we have given the appearance of being a place where genuine seekers are not welcome.

We must learn to seek how scripture applies to today’s culture

We must learn the importance of clearly delineating between principles and applications.  I would contend that God intends us to wrestle in every age and culture with scripture anew.  I argue that God wants us to bend application to a particular culture.  We must become people who so clearly understand the unchanging things of the Gospel that we feel no compunction about adjusting applications and traditions to meet our cultures needs.  We must also be familiar enough with our culture to do so.  We must acknowledge the plain fact that while God’s immutable laws do not change, the ways we apply them must.  Once again, this must all be done, not in one man’s brain, but by dialogue among many.  While it may be advantageous to have one CEO Type, one senior Pastor, there must also be a variety of mature Godly Leaders who must work in plurality to determine how these core doctrines play out in our culture.  For example: questions of divorce and remarriage, women’s roles in the church, and so on  must be discussed and dialogued until within each local church there is discovery made of what we know and what we don’t know.  We affirm what we know, and continue to discover what we don’t.  We then apply these principles in the best ways to accomplish God’s purpose of discipleship in our culture.  For example, in the case of divorce,  at least one overriding principle is that God hates divorce.  But, the leaders must decide what that means God would have us do in our culture.  Jesus only speaks of one exception, Does Paul add another? If not, than how do we explain the tension between these verses?  Other important questions arise:  Why does God hate divorce? What does that tell us about marriage?  Why is it so special?  What does that mean we do about divorced people.  What about people who get divorced?  How do they repent?  do they have to remarry their original spouse?  What if they can’t? Is it better for a young divorced woman with children to remain unmarried or remarry if a Godly man will take her, for the sake of the children? and on and on.  Scripture is not a stagnant piece of paper, it is a living document, still breathing God’s inspired words.  To be good stewards then we must be constantly finding how it breathes into today’s culture.  it would be simple to simply require our culture to become what it was in Paul’s time, but that is not possible.  God knew that and wrote scripture in such a way that it can still resonate through the dialectic discovery of mature leaders with a heart for loving and reaching and salting their culture. It would be equally simple to dismiss all unpopular scripture as merely cultural.  That again would be a severe mistake, as we would lose the essential principles and be left with nothing substantive to apply.  Neither approach will salt our culture.  It is only through effort, study and the discernment and integrity of Godly leaders in concert and discussion that such decisions can be made. Such an idea is not without precedent.  Again I would direct you to the bibliography but this time with special attention to the book of acts and early church history to see the ways the apostles and early leaders interacted on significant issues.

Discussing the most important issues.

We live in a culture which is immersed in a philosophy of action.  Most of any discussion that occurs is immediately about applications and actions.  Political discussions are not allowed time in sound bites and debates geared for short attention spans to explore the reasons behind ideologies but only to describe the works that will be done because of those ideologies.  Popular Science discussions often become discussions in fact of technology--the application of ideas, rather than the discovery of them.  We have a tendency to dismiss discussions which do not have immediate apparent application as unimportant.  But consider the example of abortion in our culture.   The Christian church declares abortion to be wrong because it takes a life.  I agree, but have we discussed what life is?  Why do we think it’s life?  At what point does it become life?   Does life relate to the soul?  If so, then at what point is the soul in the body?    Such questions may seem at times pointless, but it is exactly the lack of these discussions which has lead to a complete inability to anticipate with any kind of helpful philosophy the coming crises.  Clearer discussions about life and abortion would have radically made more of us prepared for the clone debate.  But here again we do not find much actual dialogue, certainly not in the church.  Usually we find only strong opinions without defense.  True these strong opinions often cite scripture as the reason for their opinions, but then these scriptures must be discussed till we are sure we understand them and see what the principles are that do apply to cloning.  The church, in an attempt to be relevant has to some degree dispensed with such esoteric questions.  What we may have failed to realize is that these kinds of questions never ceased being relevant to our culture. 

So for these reasons: encouraging active learning, remembering our place as journeymen, a healthier view of scripture and culture and a return to the foundational questions, our fifth indispensable paradigm is

Paradigm 5--The importance of active learning over “here’s the answer” learning

****************************************************************************************************

Paradigm 6--practical and functional unity among churches in a city.

This is probably the most foreign sounding at first glance.   There seem to be so many churches and so many disagreements and so little success at practical unity.  Or maybe it doesn’t sound foreign at all as you think of the Billy Graham crusades and other events which have fostered a short term unity among churches. Neither of these responses indicate a full grasp of the paradigm.  Once again, I must refer you to the bibliography where you can find books with illustration after illustration, story after story to clarify this point.  For the purposes of this paper let me only stress the following.

1)  The kind of unity I’m referring to here is more than just a unity around an event or two.  It’s a unity around the goal of saturating the city with salty christians through discipleship.  It’s a practical and functional unity around a common vision where leaders from various churches are ultimately willing to give up certain preferences and positions to fall under the leadership of city pastors of a sort.

2) The kind of unity I am referring to does not remove the autonomy  or better said, the responsibility of the local churches.  No unanimity would be required in the mode or style of worship or in any of the numerous disputable doctrines.   Each church would still have its own plans and its own discipleship methods.  Each church could still function in it’s service as it saw best.  However, each of these plans and goals would be integrated and contribute to the city vision.  Once again, the unity would be around the end goals of transforming the culture in this city (principally through the planting of disciple-making churches).

3)  This paradigm will be almost impossible for a church to adopt without having gone through the other five paradigm shifts.  Without a vision for the church, without a clear discipleship process, without the grace to mingle with churches of different convictions, without a mentality of service to the community and a willingness to entertain questions and discussion, such practical unity will be virtually impossible. 

4)  Although initially such unity could function by consensus, it would ultimately require a few people responsible for the church plans city wide.  These leaders would also find themselves needing to function in plurality with discussions about Scripture and our culture, much as the elders must do in paradigm five.

5)  It is neither necessary nor realistic that all the churches in a city function in unity.  It must only be a significant enough number to be able to saturate the city with disciple making churches.  Clearly this would have to be a voluntary approach, and some churches would cooperate more fully in such functional and practical unity than others.

So, the final indispensable ingredient is

Paradigm 6--practical and functional unity among churches in a city.