Responding to the grinch

Hm-m-m, how would you respond to the Grinch’s enigma?

Thought I would share some of the joy that I experience at this time of year with a reminder that God the Father sent, for all peoples of all times in all places, the gift of God the Son. Jesus came to earth on mission as a not-so-secret agent of reconciliation.

Christmas is a time for family and friends. But yesterday, I learned that a very close friend, who was working for his sister, just got fired because she was upset with him. Nice Christmas present :-(

I actually learned of this through another friend. I went to visit her with a little present from our family. I figured being single, she might have been feeling a bit lonely at this time of year because, through a series of unfortunate circumstances, she too had become alienated from a bunch of her friends.

In spite of separations like this, I still have hope because of Jesus. He came to earth on a mission to bring people back together. By the way, whether one recognizes it or not, you, I and all people everywhere have also been alienated from God.

Maybe we have not committed atrocities (and then again maybe we have), but neither have we been perfectly just, perfectly loving, perfectly kind to all the people that come across our path on any given day or lifetime. And our unwitting wrongs (not to mention our deliberate ones) can separate us one from another and have separated us from God. Or as a sage of old put it, “Your iniquities have separated you from your God; your sins have hidden his face from you.”

But God the loving Father so desired relationship with all people, both nice and nasty, that he sent His Son as an intermediary to reunite us. Could this be the “more” that the Grinch sought behind the Christmas festivities? Hm-m-m.

The baby Jesus grew up. But Jesus was different from other young men. He interacted perfectly with everyone that crossed his path; those who were hurting he helped, those who were in the wrong he rebuked, those who sought him he spent time with. He showed us what it was to love perfectly.

Because God is perfect He cannot tolerate evil; it must be punished or justice collapses. But He is also inherently loving. So He sent Jesus, who led a perfectly just life, and in his love for us all, willingly agreed to accept the punishments for every injustice committed by every one of us, so that all people everywhere could enjoy a relationship with his perfect, loving Father. Jesus was sentenced to death for the imperfect behavior, words, attitudes, as well as the evil, injustice and atrocities of the whole world throughout all time.

People, whose trust is in Jesus, are acquitted from their crimes and misdemeanors because Jesus took their punishment as though he had done the wrong himself. And now, those people whose place their faith in Jesus and the amnesty he offers can connect with the perfect, loving God.

In case you are interested, the prerequisite for receiving this forgiveness for one's own nasties is to admit that one has been unwittingly and willfully bad and to place one’s confidence in Jesus, that he has accepted the punishment that "I" deserve.

I have found that by placing my confidence in Jesus — the guest of honor at the Christmas festivities — I have been able to enjoy a deepening relationship with God, enjoy rather good relationships with people, and at times have had the privilege of being an agent of reconciliation between people who have become alienated one from another.

So possibly this Christmas, believers and skeptics alike might take the time to entertain the Grinch's questions, "What if Christmas, he thought, doesn't come from a store? What if Christmas, perhaps, means a little bit more?"

As we say here in la belle France, Joyeux Noël !
paul

Church morphing: imperfect understanding

Baseball season is over and Boston swept the World’s Series (and my wife is quite sure that the Pirates will do the same next year!). My softball team nonetheless continues practicing and playing indoors. So batter up!

Dijon University Club indoor tournament

Coach Klaw (left) at the Besançon tournament chilledly awaiting our next game

For this softball game we will of course need an umpire. And before the game starts we will have the luxury of choosing an umpire from one of three schools of interpreting balls and strikes.

The IDEALIST umpire says: “I call it the way it IS. If it IS a strike I call it a strike. If it IS a ball I call it a ball.”

The PRAGMATIST umpire: “I call it the way I see it. The rules are not right or wrong. We agreed on them; they facilitate the game. Cut the chatter and play ball!”

The CRITICAL-REALIST umpire says: “I call it the way I see it. There is a real pitch and an objective standard against which I must judge it, but I can be shown to be right or wrong.”

Well, maybe we aren’t going to play softball. These three “umpires” reflect differing philosophical approaches to the relationship between truth and understanding. And the issue before us is, if one accepts by faith that God and the Bible are absolute Truth, to what extent can one understand it?

One of my French interns once reacted rather strongly to a Bible discussion on eschatology that I facilitated with our university group. He had heard so much bellicose, deductive dogmatism in his ecclesiastic tradition (his father was a theology professor with a conservative denomination) that he said, “You know, I break out in hives whenever someone brings up the subject.” He preferred to take a wait-and-see position.

So let's take the rapture for example. Based upon Jesus' words, “You… must be ready, because the Son of man will come at an hour when you do not expect him” (Mt. 24:44), are the following assertions Truth or an understanding of Truth?

a) Jesus will return suddenly.
b) Jesus will return before the Great Tribulation.

TO WHAT EXTENT CAN ONE UNDERSTAND TRUTH: ABSOLUTELY?
The IDEALIST umpire was prevalent under modernism. Many scientists and theologians alike saw virtually no distinction between objective truth and their understanding of that truth. So the “idealist” (a philosophical school of thought) theologian tacitly asserts, “Scripture is perfect and my understanding of Scripture is perfect.”

Returning to the tribulational discussion, idealist pastors might confidently claim, “The Bible says Jesus will return for His Church (fill in the blank: before, during, after) the Great Tribulation. But as Paul Hiebert (Anthropological Reflections on Missiologial Issues, 26) wryly points out, this claim to a one-to-one correlation between Truth and understanding of Truth “raises problems when disagreements arise”!

Two limitations that hinder even regenerate, godly theologians from arriving at a perfect understanding of Truth are that the human intellect is finite and tainted by sin.


Jay Adams refers to “the noetic effects of sin” that causes people to “distort” messages. (Theology of Christian Counseling, 165, 172). And sin does not only affect the understanding of unregenerate people.* If sin influences regenerate people in the physical realm — materialism, sensuality… (Eph.5:3) — why might we imagine that it does not affect our intellect and understanding of Truth?

David Wells says, “There has long been a Christian argument that reason… is not neutral but it is tainted by sinful bias of various kinds” (Above All Earthly Powers: Christ in a Postmodern World, 83-84).

D.A. Carson states, “Our sin ensures that even a system closely aligned with Scripture will be in some measure distorted.” (Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church, 68)

So I contend that our understanding is subject to distortion and bias and that this applies to our interpretation of the Truth. A contemporary, almost universally recognized example of sin-tainted reasoning was the theological justification of racism by some Dutch Reformed theologians that supported the Affricaans superiority over the majority autochthons — apartheid.

Rez Band first brought apartheid to public awareness with the blistering song, "Afrikaans" (1979)

And we are finite beings, not omniscient. As Carson says, “Human beings can know some true things, even if nothing exhaustively” (Becoming Conversant, 104-110).

So Truth is objective and universal, but our understanding of Truth is local and subjective. Due to the effects of sin and finiteness it is critical to distinguish between the Truth of Scripture and one's understanding of Truth. Scripture must retain its rightful place, far above human understanding (Is.55:8**).

TO WHAT EXTENT CAN ONE UNDERSTAND TRUTH: NOT AT ALL?
A consequence of not recognizing this distinction leads to a PRAGMATIC postmodern allergic reaction to conflicts resulting from contradictory “perfect” understandings of truth*** like that of my intern above, pragmatic avoidance.
A postmodern person could easily say, “We don’t even know if truth exists and we certainly will not have the same interpretation of it, so just play ball!"

But there is a position that accepts the absolute Truth of God and His Word while recognizing man’s provincial, sin-tainted, biased understanding.
TO WHAT EXTENT CAN ONE UNDERSTAND TRUTH: SOMEWHAT?
CRITICAL REALISTS hold that meaning can be adequately determined, but that understanding must be “constantly probed, critiqued, improved, revised, replaced, and evaluated (hence the adjective ‘critical’)” (Becoming Conversant, 104-110).
In the above example, a critical realist would contend that response a) “Jesus will return suddenly” qualifies as Truth, while b) “Jesus will return before the Great Tribulation” is a particular understanding of Truth.

Now it is very appropriate to hold the latter as a personal and even as a collective conviction. But it is not proper to claim, “The Bible says that the rapture will occur prior to the Great Tribulation.” Because the pre-trib view is a theological construct involving significant amounts of human interpretation, both deductive and inductive reasoning, it is preferable to say humbly, “I believe the Bible teaches… Here’s why…”

"Foot Washing" by Wanda Teel. The artist says, “The foot washing picture is about my g-g-grandparents’ church. This was about being humble.” http://www.marciaweberartobjects.com/teel.html

As Tom Julien wrote in “Identity Shock-A Plea for Consensus” (1980s), it is “alarming... to assign certainty to logical inference. When inerrancy is assigned to interpretive systems… this represents a new creedalism…” which historically, my tradition, the Grace Brethren, has staunchly opposed.

Dr. Manahan, president of Grace College and Seminary, wrote, “A significant part of what Grace is comes from the pietistic heritage … Pietists are very pessimistic about the capacity of reason to fathom the mysteries of God.” (“The Pietistic Spirit”)

Paul Hiebert comments, “The Anabaptists … were critical realists. They affirmed that there is objective reality and objective truth (reality as God sees it—as it really is). They recognized, however, that all truth as perceived by humans is partial and has a subjective element within it… This awareness led the Anabaptists to make a sharp distinction between God’s revelation as recorded in Scripture and human understandings expressed in theology.”

The critical realist “view led Anabaptists to take a humble view of theology. They held strongly to their theological convictions; many died for them. But they readily admitted that their understanding of truth was partial, biased, and possibly wrong. They were, therefore, willing to test their convictions by returning to the Scriptures.” (Missiological Issues, 98, 100)

A biblically tenable position, therefore, that I believe will serve the local church well in an increasingly postmodern climate is that of the critical realist, distinguishing between the absolute, objective Truth of the Word of God and our partial, subjective, sin-tainted and biased understanding of that Truth, a humble position that Scripture is perfect, but our understanding of Scripture is imperfect.


NOTES
* Millard Erickson (Christian Theology, vol2, 617-618) points out that some the effects of sin are self-deceit (Jer.17:9), insensitivity (1 Ti. 4.2), coveting (James 4:1-2), inability to empathize (Phil. 2:3-5)…..

** “My thoughts are completely different from yours,” says the Lord. “And my ways are far beyond anything you could imagine. For just as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts higher than your thoughts.”

*** “I have observed one thing among true Christians in their differences in many countries: what divides and severs true Christian groups and Christians—what leaves a bitterness that can last for twenty, thirty or forty years (or for fifty or sixty years in a son’s memory)—is not the issue of doctrine or belief which caused the differences in the first place. Invariably it is lack of love—and the bitter things that are said by true Christians in the midst of differences. These stick in the mind like glue.” (Francis Schaeffer, The Mark of the Christian, 195, italics mine)

Church morphing: secondhand convictions

I was helping a friend prepare for his licensure exam. I was dismayed when he showed me a sample copy of the test; there was as much about interpretive systems and theological jargon as about Bible content! I lamented, “How will this provide an accurate indication of whether my friend ‘correctly handles the word of truth?’”
Another friend, an evangelist-church planter, has eschewed licensure and ordination saying, “I don’t need that to do what God has called me to do.” A postmodern reaction to a highly developed system that may have at one time served a valid purpose, but no longer responds to current needs.

But might there be some middle ground between these hyper-theological* and “Just say no!” approaches to biblical preparation for ministry? The former could be filtering out all but would-be theologians, potentially excluding apostles, prophets, evangelists and shepherds, and the latter leads to pragmatism, potentially leading away from biblically rooted ministry.


Leaders or followers?
In chapter 8 of Anthropological Insights for Missionaries, Paul Hiebert presents the “self-theologizing” principle for use in cross-cultural, church planting situations. His insights are pertinent in this transitional period as leaders guide local churches out of confident modernity through suspicious postmodernity.

Dr. Hiebert writes, “It is essential that we train leaders who can wrestle with the theological issues that emerge within their cultural context (2 Tim. 2:2).”

There are few things to which we Grace Brethren should shout a louder, “Amen!” We want to develop men and women of the Word. We must realize, however, that “it is much harder to train leaders, for we must teach them to think for themselves, to disagree with us, and to stand for their own convictions. We must learn to accept debates and honest disagreements on tough theological issues without cutting off a [postmodern] brother or sister” (216).

And we must realize that without this type of prayerful, direct interaction with the Scriptures, we do not train leaders but followers “who merely believe what we say and imitate us” (215). But those who simply replicate applications of Scripture that were relevant during the 20th century’s liberal wars of religion will find themselves increasingly irrelevant in the 21st century’s proliferation of spiritualities.

And by demanding that emerging leaders believe identically like we modernists do, many of the strong may leave in frustration because they have not had the freedom and opportunity to participate in a dynamic, theologizing process (235).

Theological orientation?
As a church planter, I had wondered what would happen when I was no longer present to influence the theological orientation of the Dijon church. As my wife and I transitioned the church over to French leadership we recognized the accuracy of Hiebert’s words, “there is no way to guarantee the preservation of our theological convictions. We can write them in creeds and constitutions and can police churches and schools. But those who succeed us will come to their own convictions. Each generation in the church must come to its own living faith. Secondhand beliefs will not do” (216).
One Sunday morning, I sat listening to Franck, the Dijon church pastor, teaching from Scripture about healing. I was amazed because I could have preached the exact same content (only Franck presented it much better)! Even though we had never specifically discussed the subject our convictions were almost identical. How could this be if I never taught him? After all, I was his trainer and mentor!

My guess is that this common conviction was a result of relationship (some theology is more caught than taught) and because we approach Scripture utilizing a biblical theological approach and a common hermeneutic (grammatical-historical-contextual-prayerful).

Spiritual immaturity?
So should emerging postmodern leaders of Grace Brethren churches assume the responsibility and have the “right to understand and apply the gospel in their own settings? Is there not a danger that they will go theologically astray? The answer to both of these questions is yes. To grow, spiritually young churches must search the Scriptures themselves, and if—for fear that they well leave the truth—we do not allow them to do so, we condemn them to spiritual infancy and early death. On the other hand, to allow people to study the Scriptures for themselves always entails some risk” (208).

But as Hiebert says, “The Scriptures… speak of the priesthood of all believers. We need to teach all Christians to study and interpret the Bible for themselves and to apply its message to their lives. To deny them this is to keep them spiritually immature.”
I believe that Hiebert's "self-theologizing" approach to biblical truth is throughly in harmony with our Grace Brethren heritage and is a key to biblical mission. Young leaders are needed, guided by the Spirit of God, accompanied by gifted people, committed to the absolute truth of the Living Word, studying and applying it in fresh ways in their localities if we want to see local churches, not simply survive, but thrive and hive** into the postmodern future.


* theology: not in the sense of “knowledge of God” but rather of “a religious theory, school of thought, or system of belief.”

** "Hiving" is a term French church planters use for church multiplication. Just as bees form new cells onto a hive, churches “hive” out with new groups.

Church morphing: truth or interpretation?

I was sitting in Marcus’ living room. He had grown up in a German Grace Brethren Church (my denomination). This young man is a building contractor, the lead elder in a lay-led church; his vision includes seeing simple churches scattered across the region of Germany surrounding his church!

Marcus had just shared with me about the work that God was doing in his life, obviously a fresh filling of the Spirit! And he turned to me with this question: “Does one need to be dispensationalist in order to be Grace Brethren?”

In 2008, the Grace Brethren will be celebrating our 300-year birthday! For the past few decades the predominant interpretive system among our pastors has been dispensationalism, but over the last three centuries the Grace Brethren have simply focused on biblical truth, relationship and mission. So in light of history, I shared, “No. We adhere to biblical truth, not an interpretive system.”

Alexander Mack founded the Brethren movement in 1708, not all that far from Marcus' home in Germany. Mack was a pietist, strongly committed to Scripture.

You will have recognized that an epistemological* question arises, n’est-ce pas ?! If truth exists, can I understand it? And between truth and understanding lies one’s interpretative system (everyone has one).

Thanks to his empirical methodology, Sigmund Freud recorded some rather interesting observations about dreams. He said, “Dreaming is evidently mental life during sleep.” “We see that dreams are not disturbers of sleep, as they are abusively called, but guardians of sleep which get rid of disturbances of sleep” (Introductory Lectures on Psycho-Analysis, 107, 158).

Salvador Dali "Sleep" 1937

Fascinating stuff. But Freud pushes farther wanting to interpret the dream and so developed an interpretive grid based upon sex. Predicated upon “evolutionary truth” (197), Freud logically deduced that work became “an equivalent and substitute for sexual activity.”

He opines, “If the hypothesis I have here sketched out is correct, it would give us a possibility of understanding dream-symbolism… and why in general, weapons and tools always stand for what is male, while materials and things that are worked upon stand for what is female” (206).

A professionally trained female auto mechanic in Kenya (www.un.org)

Okay, now how many of us would agree with Freud’s starting point and the resulting interpretive system? We would all agree that dreams are real, but even psychiatrists differ on what dreams mean based upon varying interpretive systems. Similarly, truth exists, but our understanding of that truth will differ based upon the interpretive system used.

Brent Sandy, in his insightful book, Plowshares & Pruning Hooks: Rethinking the Language of Biblical Prophecy and Apocalyptic, quotes John Stott saying, “The hallmark of authentic Evangelicalism is not the uncritical repetition of old traditions but the willingness to submit every tradition, however ancient, to fresh biblical scrutiny, and, if necessary, reform.” Brent goes on to say, “Sadly,… many people have inadvertently domesticated God.” Our interpretive systems can also domesticate His Word.


Brent points out that the raw truth of the Bible must have primacy over and evaluate even our interpretive systems. In a reference to C. S. Lewis’ Aslan, Dr. Sandy asserts (207), “The intent of the prophets is to let the lion roar”!

"Who said anything about safe? 'Course he isn't safe. But he's good." Mr. Beaver to Lucy

SO WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH CHURCH MORPHING?

As local churches move from modernity to postmodernity, young leaders must be encouraged to interact with the unadulterated Word of God. “Sola scriptura” (Scrpiture only) and “ad fontes” (back to the source documents) are the need of the moment.

To be continued…

* epistemology basically deals with the question, how do I know what I know.

Church morphing: is truth the ONLY issue?

A friend sent me a CD of John MacArthur speaking on “What’s so dangerous about the emerging church?” He begins by saying, “The bottom line, I think, in the movement is that it is a denial of the clarity of Scripture; it is a denial that we can know what the Bible really says.” At least in this interview, MacArthur made “truth” the only issue in the inherited / emergent church “conversation.”

(Next up: the often overlooked difference between Scripture and our understanding of Scripture.)

But talking about his leadership style, one emerging churches advocate said, “We are kingdom minded. If someone wants to start something, I approve it, providing the person is a part of the community and it doesn’t go against Scripture. We encourage people to be creative.” (Emerging Churches, Bolger & Gibbs, 293). Hm-m-m, sounds like a rather high view of Scripture!


Tim Boal introduces helpful nuance into the debate by distinguishing between the "emergent" and "emerging" positions on Scripture. He observes that among emergent group spokespersons (McLaren & co.), "There has been an increasing tendency to replace a belief in absolute truth with an understanding of truth as perceived or experienced in community… It appears the emergent group has followed this path from its once solid starting point.”

In this conversation, we must remember that adoption of philosophical postmodernism inexorably leads to the loss of absolutes.

In contradistinction to the emergent movement, Tim says, “The emerging church differs from the emergent church within evangelical circles in that it primarily focuses on the forms and experiences of the local church community and how these contribute to or diminish true community. Many young evangelical leaders support and promote the idea of absolute truth.” (“Getting Real About the Emerging Church”, Tim Boal - June 2007)

I found this helpful and have adopted Tim's terminology. I concur with those emerging churches people who say that relationship is vital AND truth is absolute.


I believe (this is after all a question of faith) that all truth emanates from the infinite-personal Creator God. Jesus, God the Son, declared: “I am… the Truth” (John 14:6). And He who is the truth declared, “Your Word is truth” (John 17:17). I believe therefore that:

* Revealed truth is objective — God has revealed truth both historically in Christ and propositionally in His Word.

* Revealed truth is knowable — as rational beings created in God’s image, we have the ability to know God’s revealed truth.

D.A. Carson’s “Becoming Conversant With the Emerging Church” is much more nuanced than MacArthur’s treatment of the subject. Carson adroitly deals with the “truth” issue. One could even get the impression from his book that it is the ONLY issue in this “conversation” between modernist and postmodernist expressions of church. But in an off-the-cuff remark, he notes one of the great motivators that fostered the emerging churches movement: a strong sense of mission.

Carson states, “It is something inherent in the movement itself. The attempt to break out of what is perceived to be the holy huddle of traditional evangelicalism is driven, at least in part, by a concern for evangelism, in particular the evangelism of a new generation of people who are shaped by postmodern assumptions.” (Carson, 52) I would say that it is accurate to say that in general the emerging churches movement has “the goal of reaching the completely unchurched” (Carson, 39).


One emerging churches leader says his church is “refocusing to become a community that is intentionally missional.” Bolger and Gibbs go so far as to say, “Emerging churches… their structure is missional in nature”!

Another emerging churches proponent says, "'This may seem pretty basic and obvious, but so many people just don't get it. We are definitely all missionaries and evangelists. There are some who are more gifted for this stuff or have more of a focus on it, and they are the people who encourage and lead us in this area, but we’re all involved.' For emerging churches, to be a follower of Jesus is to live as a missionary” (Emerging Churches, Bolger & Gibbs, 271, 107, 58).

Yet another emerging churches leader talks about this movement as a new reformation of the church, “Imagine that! A reformation built around mission and relationship…” (Carson quoting Chris Seay, 24).

Tom Julien has long preached that the 300 year focus of the Grace Brethren fellowship, to which I belong, has revolved around biblical truth, relationship and mission. I believe these time-tested, anabaptistic emphases provide reliable guiding principles for leaders to follow as they lead local churches into the postmodern, pre-whatever future.

What if local churches, rather than focusing on one or two of the above issues, espoused a tripartite focus, the emphases of the inherited AND emerging churches — the truth of Scripture, community and mission wedded in dynamic tension. Imagine that!

Church morphing: a worldly church?

Let's start with a quick quiz to determine to what extent the twentieth century Evangelical church espoused philosophical modernism.
How many of these modernist adages did the 20th century Evangelical church assimilate into its ethos or praxis? If and when they were applied, what forms did they take?
“I think therefore I am”
“Dare to know”
“Knowledge is power”
“Seeing is believing”
“We can do this if we will”

How many of these modernist maxims did the 20th century Evangelical church adopt into its ethos or praxis? If and when they were applied, what forms did they take?
The intellect can deduce truth with absolute certainty
Man will act logically
Progress is inherently good
The real world is material
By and large the Evangelical church of the twentieth century (with the exception of some postmillennialists) did not adopt the modernist belief that reason, by means of ideology-embodying institutions, would create utopia on earth on behalf of the autonomous individual. But I contend that she did absorb more philosophical modernism than is generally admitted.

The three “I ”s of modernism were:
Intellect (manifested through the reign of reason),
Ideology-embodied in Institutions, and
the deification of autonomous Individual.
All three of these tenets of modernism can be seen in the 20th century Evangelical church. The focus on the INTELLECT could be seen in the centrality, even dominance, of the teaching ministry in contradistinction to teaching being dynamically intertwined with apostolic, prophetic, evangelistic and shepherding ministries, for the equipping of the people of God, as Ephesians 4:11-12 teaches.

I do not believe anyone would contest the assertion that 20th century Evangelical churches made an enormous investment of time in Bible study. This was good in and of itself. Often, however, this cultivation of a biblically informed intellect was disproportionate with, and to the detriment of investment in other equally biblical essentials such as prayer, evangelism, disciple making….

The 20th century Evangelical church’s morphing into ideology-embodying INTITUTIONS was reflected in the stanch denominationalism of members (“I am a Baptist, a card carrying Conservative Baptist!”). Exclusivist denominationalism of clergy reflected in the thinking, not that every ten thousand people need a believing church witness as missiologists claim, but that people needed a particular brand of collective witness to the saving grace of Christ. Thus every town needed a Grace Brethren, Assembly of God, Southern Baptist... church. (Some towns could get really crowded if every one of the more than 22,000 Protestant denominations were represented!).

The 20th century Evangelical church’s focus on the autonomous INDIVIDUAL is seen in the Lone Ranger, “Just Me and God,” approach to discipleship and the Superman approach to the ministry.

The Lone Ranger disciple read every “you” reference in the New Testament as singular, whereas many (most?) of these passages are plural, addressing the church collectively. Of course, most churches now recognize the absolute necessity of heeding the "one another" exhortations in Scripture.

The individualistic Superman pastor was modernist as well, expected to be the evangelist - theologian - teacher - preacher - counselor - shepherd - administrator - strategist - bulletin-producing janitor! Yet today we recognize that Scripture teaches a multiplicity of gifted people serving together in a coordinated manner.


So there are indications that many 20th century Evangelical churches embodied central tenets of philosophical modernism. Some even became reason-led, ideology-embodying institutions and catering to the autonomous individual.

In my discussions with pastors, a modernist approach is sometimes defended because in philosophical modernism absolute “truth” exists. They fear that a rejection of modernism means a rejection of knowable Truth. But truth existed, and people believed in God and the Bible before modernism, as some will do after modernism has passed.


No, the 20th century Evangelical church did not preach philosophical modernism's conclusion of utopia on earth, but it did adopt some of its values.

So to what extent did churches become guilty of worldliness by the assimilation of modernism's focus on the Intellect over the spirit, Institution over organism, and the Individual over the collective?

Seeing the rotten fruit of modernism (previous entry) and knowing of modernism's inimical relationship to faith (see May 10, 2006 entry), was the assimilation of modernist values without deleterious effects to the local church?

Were the modernist tenets systematically helpful for living and spreading the Good News of Christ?

Is it not possible that biblical essentials were filtered out of local churches ethos and praxis due to modernism's subversive influence?

My firm conviction is that this was indeed the case.

Church morphing: backdrop of modernist church

(This entry picks up where the May 10, 2006 "Contextualization: tailoring good news" and philosophical blogs on modernism left off. It will provide the backdrop for why expressions of true Church according to Jesus, ekklesia, must morph in order to truly embody the essence of Jesus' desire for His Church in the 21st century.)

Friedrich Nietzsche’s superMan, Zarathoustra, led the way into the 20th century declaring, “God is dead!” Religion, though not expunged, had been pushed out of the public arena relegated to the private sphere. (Religion was culpable from the Crusades and the Inquisition, thus synonymous with hypocrisy, torture and bloodshed — see January 2006 blogs.)



Reason, rather than religion, would lead the way into the future. The modernist motto was, “There will be war no more!” Man would no longer be exploited by other men. The modernist promise was that ideology-embodying institutions would create a utopia-on-earth on behalf of the autonomous individual.

Does not the posture of the men in this poster reveal that man was serving Progress and not vice versa?

What happened? Under the reign of Human Reason, the world experienced the greatest collective bloodbath in the history of mankind, leaving 113 million dead (not counting Stalin's massacres because that toll is unknown).

A great disillusionment was ushered in because modern Man with his noble ideology, technology, transportation, medicine, and a progressive understanding of history… created highly efficient means of killing men before they could die from the diseases that modern medicine could not heal.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn summed up the 20th century by saying, “the most optimistic century ended as the most cannibalistic.” Instead of ushering in utopia-on-earth, Modernism's Intellect/reason developed ideology-embodying institutions that created hell-on-earth for the autonomous individual. Modernist fruit thus revealed itself to be rotten to the core:

• Man’s intelligence proved impotent in the face of famine and AIDS.
• Reason devised Auschwitz and other ideology-embodying death camps ("the death industry" as Zygmunt Bauman put it).
• Individualism led to isolation.

For a glimpse into the postmodern dark mood toward modernism's promises about the fruit of man's intellect / reason, ideology-embodying institutions and the true value of the autonomous individual in society, decode the symbols in Pink Floyd's video clip "Just Another Brick in the Wall" — train, teacher, school, facelessness, meat grinder:

Next up: SO WHAT?
Did the twentieth century evangelical church espouse modernism thus becoming a reason-led, individualistic, ideology-embodying institution?

controversial household rules

"It's a trap," they said, fearing I would get embroiled in a post-seminar blog war. So some close friends counseled me not to do the Equip '07 seminar, Guiding Principles for the People of God in a Postmodern World.

But I felt that God would have me equip the body from an apostolic perspective rather than the typical teacher's point of view; as another Paul put it, "apostles… teachers… Their responsibility is to equip God's people to do his work… until we come to… unity in our faith and knowledge of God's Son…"

Because of the great need that I sense for people to understand the destabilizing implications of postmodernism for the church, with prayer and trepidation, I went for it.

Because we would wrestle with the controversial, emotionally charged topics of inherited and emergent and emerging churches I decided to do something radical… create a safe place for discussion by applying God's household rules!

God gives rules of conduct to those who are part of His household. Paul wrote to Timothy, “you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.” (1 Ti. 3:15)

So, for example, we agreed to obey the last verse of 1 Corinthians 14, “everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way.” “Orderly” is used one time in the passage. How much more then did we need to agree to intentionally edify one another (οικοδομεω is used 7x in the passage)!

Historically the Grace Brethren have been committed to biblical truth, biblical relationships and biblical mission. So in our discussions we sought to live by God's household rules for cultivating biblical relationships:


• Practice maintaining the unity of the Spirit (Eph. 4:2-3)
• Practice speaking the truth in love toward the goal of peace (Eph. 4:2-3, 25)
• Practice edification (1 Cor. 14:3,4,5,12,17,26)
• Practice discipleship (Mt. 28:19-20)
• Practice focusing on God’s work rather than controversies (1 Tim. 1:4)
• Practice praying for everyone (1 Ti. 2:1)
• Practice being examples in life, love, faith, purity (1 Ti. 4:12)
• Practice loving your neighbor as intensely as Jesus loves you (Jn. 13:34-35).

Since not everyone felt able to live perfectly by these household rules :-), we can stopped to pray, asking God to change us, sanctify us according to His truth, and by His Spirit, to enable us to live according to His truth.

In prayer, we committed to practice biblical truth and biblical relationships during our time together. God answered our prayers. And I have been happily enjoying a peaceful, blog-war free post-seminar existence! May He now cause us to be more fruitful as we embark on biblical mission in a postmodern world.
“As the differences among true Christians get greater, we must consciously love” more intensely. We “cannot expect the world to understand doctrinal differences, especially in our day when the existence of truth and absolutes are considered unthinkable even as concepts.… But when they see differences among true Christians who also show an observable unity, this will open the way for them to consider the truth of… Christ’s claim that the Father did send the Son.” (Francis Schaeffer, The Mark of the Christian)

Guiding Principles recap

Just over 50 people gathered for the Equip 07 seminar Guiding Principles for the People of God in a Postmodern World. Most importantly, I truly believe that God met with us, enlightening and guiding both individually and collectively.

I’ll give you the map for our journey and then in the next few entries I will attempt to summarize some of the discussions.

DAY ONE: DECONSTRUCTION OF PRESUPPOSITIONS

Welcome: introductions, objectives and household rules (Paul)

Deconstructing modernism: A glimpse at the rise and demise of modernity, and why this is important to us and our mission. (Paul)
Unpacking postmodernism: How should a postmodern culture affect the way you “view” and “do” church? (Kary)

Kary Oberbrunner, author of Called and Journey Toward Relevance

Biblical Marks of a Healthy Church: Examination of key biblical characteristics of a church. Where do "inherited" and "emergent" churches do well and where do they miss the mark? (Matt)

Matt Harmon, professor of New Testament at Grace Theological Seminary

Forum on readings and participant questions (panel: Kary, Matt, Paul)

Choose Your Flavor? A paradigm of biblical relevance will be presented, demonstrating the relationship between Christianity and culture. (Kary) With most sessions there was time either for evaluation of either self or one’s own church; there were refeshing times of prayer. And at the end of each day we had take aways asking the question: In light of what has been shared, what do you believe Jesus is saying to you and to us as the people of God?

DAY TWO: RECONSTRUCTION

Sociological assignments: participants shared the fruit of their interviews enabling us to have a window into the hearts of postmodern people and their perceptions of the evangelical church.

Am I fuzzy, bound or centered? Become familiar with bounded, fuzzy and centered thinking. Cultivate a “moving toward mindset” in the areas of biblical understanding of truth, relationships and mission. (Paul)

Forum on hermeneutics (panel Q & A: Matt, Kary, Paul)



The people of God as a kingdom of priests: Trace the biblical theological thread of God's people as a kingdom of priests, beginning in Genesis and ending in Revelation. Where do "inherited" and "emergent" churches do well and where do they miss the mark? (Matt)

Picture the Church: Gain a glimpse of Jesus’ idea Church! Explore the meaning of the NT metaphors that encapsulate the essence of the Church. (Paul)

The People of God as Transformists: A paradigm of biblical relevance will be presented, demonstrating the relationship between Christianity and culture. (Kary)

NEXT UP: Household rules or living relational truth.

Guiding Principles team: Tom Julien

Some unfortunate news — Tom Julien was to be the fourth member of our teaching/facilitating team for the interactive seminar: Guiding Principles for the People of God in a Postmodern World. Due to cardiovascular problems, however, Tom's doctor has asked him to put aside all responsibilities, so he will not be able to participate in Equip '07.

Tom has assured us of his prayers during the seminar. "The prayer of the righteous man is powerful and effective." And we will interact with some of Tom's thinking in the seminar. So he will be participating, just not as we had anticipated!

Kary, Matt and I know that God is sovereign and we are eagerly anticipating these two days of praying and dialoguing with sisters and brothers about Jesus’ idea of Church expressed in local churches.

Tom is one of the best eccesiologists that I know. My understanding of the Church has been powerfully impacted by his thinking. For example, just today he wrote:

"The church will always be caught in the tension of confronting culture while communicating with it. This tension nearly always manifests itself in one of two ways: isolation from the culture, resulting in legalism; accommodation to the culture, resulting in syncretism. In either case, the authentic church can be corrupted.

1. Corrupting the church through excessive form: death by asphyxiation.
This is the snare of the traditional church with its legalistic preservation of forms for their own sake. When form smothers function, the result is the suffocation of the essence of the church.

2. Corrupting the church through excessive freedom: death by amputation.
This is the snare of the emergent church in which many have crossed the line of despair in the loss of objective truth. When freedom ignores commitment [to Scripture as truth], the result is the dissipation of the essence of the church."

If you would like to check out some of Tom Julien's work, please see:

"The essence of the church," an extraordinary article in EMQ (Evangelical Missions Quarterly), April 1998.

Antioch Revisited: Reuniting the Church with Her Mission
"Tom Julien, drawing from decades of missionary service, recounts in story form some of his guiding principles for today’s church. The book also contains a manual to 'help you bring back together what God meant never to be separated—your church and her worldwide mission.' George Verwer, founder of Operation Mobilization, says, 'This book must be read.'"

Guiding Principles team: Kary Oberbrunner

"Live what you want to reproduce."

That is one of my team's (GBIM Europe) guiding principles. And in the upcoming interactive seminar Guiding Principles for the People of God in a Postmodern World, we plan to do just that. Rather than follow the "superman" approach to ministry (the "one man show"), we will practice teamwork according to giftedness—each one teaching in his area of expertise on the subjects about which he is passionate.

teamwork according to giftedness

Introducing KARY OBERBRUNNER who is passionate about his family: Kelly, Keegan and Isabel Grace who was just born on Saturday! Mega-congrats Kelly and Kary!

I was interested in Kary becoming part of our team as soon as I saw his blog header:

“BILINGUAL: Bridging Modern and Postmodern Values and Voices.
Because both groups bring strengths & weaknesses, insights & critiques to the table. Because both groups are comprised of people like you & I.”

Kary received his doctorate in Transformational Leadership. He is a self-proclaimed Recovering Pharisee*, "founder of Redeem the Day Ministries and serves as Director of Grace Institute and Pastor of Discipleship and Leadership Development at the Grace Church in Powell, OH.

Through his speaking, writing, coaching, and consultation, he invites others into a holistic relationship with Jesus Christ.

Kary in action

Kary believes that we can only grow in our faith when we’re real with where we’re at. He thinks God can handle our anger, frustration, and confusion, but that He won’t tolerate our hypocrisy." Kary is "calling others to live lives larger than themselves.”

Just released

*WHY RECOVERING PHARISEE?

Kary writes, "I believe every true follower of Jesus is in process. I use the word 'recovering' to communicate the fact that I haven’t arrived yet. I grew up in a strong Christian home, but slowly over time I exchanged a vibrant relationship with God for religious performance. Although, I trusted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior, I strived to repay God’s grace through duty and rules.

I felt as though my salvation and the weight of the world, rested upon my shoulders. These were dark times.…”

Required reading for the Guiding Principles seminar

For more about Kary, please visit his blog (see link on right) or his web site: http://www.karyoberbrunner.com/index.htm

Guiding Principles team: Matt Harmon

Thought I would introduce you, one by one, to the teaching team for the interactive seminar, Guiding Principles for the People of God in a Postmodern World, (July 30-31 at Grace Seminary, Winona Lake, IN).

Here are some excerpts for an article I just read yesterday about Matt Harmon. Matt will present, from the OT and NT, a biblical theology of the "people of God" (doctrine: universal priesthood of believers)… For more on Matt just click on his blog link (see on right).

Passing on What God Has Taught Him
By Melody Pfaffenberger

Dr. Matt Harman

Dr. Matt Harmon has a great desire to help people see Christ revealed in Scripture and to encourage them to lead others to see Christ.

“It’s sobering,” the Grace Theological Seminary professor says, “knowing they sit in my class, soak up my words, and make conclusions based on what I teach”…

He is one of four facilitators who will lead a discussion about “Guiding Principles for the People of God in a Postmodern World"…

Much of Harmon’s practical experience has come from his involvement in Campus Crusade for Christ, both as a student and then for eight years as a full-time staff member, both at Ohio University in Athens and at Trinity International University in the Chicago area.

As a student, his involvement with Crusade helped him realize how much he enjoyed ministry. “I felt like God was directing and leading me,” he recalls. He found it satisfying to know he was helping to advance the gospel, even in a small way.

“The thrill of passing on what God was teaching me was almost intoxicating, especially when I saw people seeing Christ in new and fresh ways from Scripture,” he recalls…

Harmon teaches Greek and advanced classes on exegesis, focusing particularly on the New Testament books. He will also teach courses on the cultural and literary background of the New Testament."

The people of God in a postmodern world: Equip '07

Back from a fabulous vacation and 25th wedding anniversary celebration in Crete! …with a change of plans. I am going to put a hold on "Tribes and configurations: postmodern church implications." Sorry about that, but gotta focus…

Crete + June 19, 2007 = 25th wedding anniversary!

Focus on what? The upcoming Equip '07 interactive seminar (Winona Lake, IN July 29 - August 3). Huh?! The Equip '07 blurb states:

"Equip07 is for all ages! All genders! It is for novices and the highly experienced. It will strengthen your foundation and sharpen your edge."

See Equip '07 info: http://www.fgbc.org/equip07/

Leaders of the denomination of which I am a part (Grace Brethren) asked me to teach a seminar at Equip '07. So, I invited some Friends, new and old — Tom Julien, Kary Oberbrunner (http://rtdministry.blogspot.com/) and Matt Harmon (http://bibtheo.blogspot.com/), to present:

Guiding Principles for the People of God in a Postmodern World

(Create your own infomercial by reading the following blurb!)

"Postmodernity is shaping our culture. Some churches, attempting to be relevant to their culture, are assimilating emergent postmodern philosophies. Other churches, attempting to be faithful to Scripture, are freezing their forms.
The ecclesiological conversation is often confusing and heated, yet the Spirit of God desires to guide local churches through the fog into fruitfulness.

Drs. Paul Klawitter, Kary Oberbrunner, Matt Harmon and Tom Julien, will facilitate dialogue around salient issues facing local churches. These men, representing three different generations, will share GUIDING PRINCIPLES for learning leaders who desire to be biblically faithful and culturally relevant as they navigate both inherited and emergent churches through today’s fluid postmodern culture.
GOALS:

• Learners will deepen their understanding of the postmodern world in which we live and become more culturally nuanced; they will gain fresh insights into Jesus’ design for the local church, and renewed confidence in the pertinence of Scripture in a fluid culture.
• Learners will interact with one another, Scripture, critical terms and concepts, as well as the strengths and weaknesses of both Inherited and Emergent Church realities.
• Learners will receive practical guidelines on how to grow in their relationships with God, believers and unbelievers, and how to guide the local church toward biblical relevance in this postmodern period in which we find ourselves.

WHO WILL BENEFIT:

• Any leader desiring to transform their world by being in it but not of it.
• Anybody desiring to know more about postmodernism, the Emergent Church Movement, and the Inherited Church.
• Anybody desiring to find their place in The Metanarrative."

So far, 40 learners from across the United States, Europe and beyond are signed up. If you want to join in on the fun just click and sign-in (http://www.fgbc.org/equip07/registration.html).

It will be great to sharpen and edify one another as, for a couple of days, we live in a learning community. Looking forward to seeing you!

Tribes & configurations: postmodern church implications (1)

Let’s unpack the opening line from my previous entry: “Pentecost weekend 2007: a postmodern tribal event if there ever was one!” Tribes in the Australian bush or deepest, darkest Africa okay, but occidental postmodern tribes?!

Postmodern tribes are micro-societies, says Anne-Marie Green*, formed around interest based cultures, that transcend class, social status and even age.
For example, a person may belong to a musical tribe, and silently proclaims that by a particular label of clothes and other “badges” that the young person will wear and by which s/he identifies with her/his tribe.

A postmodern badge

(I had an oh-so-cool orange Led Zeppelin t-shirt that I acquired during a high school trip to the Jersey shore with my friends. I of course sported until it had gone well past dust cloth status!)

Tribal Configurations
According to Bernard Cova and Marco Roncaglio, postmodern tribal groupings are composed of the individual, the nucleus or core group and occasional huge gatherings that stimulate the imagination.**


Postmodern tribal social configurations have tremendous implications for the forms that postmodern ekklesia (church) could or should or will take. More about at the end of the month… once I return from vacation!

* Anne-Marie Green, Des jeunes et des musiques: Rock, Rap, Techno… (Paris: L’Harmattan, 1997). Professor Green teaches sociology at the Paris X University and musicology at Paris IV.
** Adapted from Bernard Cova and Marco Roncalglio, “Repérer et soutenir des tribus de consommateurs ?” Décisions Marketing, no.16 (janvier-avril 1999).

Mission Attitude: Pentecôte 2007

Pentecost weekend 2007: a postmodern tribal event if there ever was one!
(But all of you aspiring cultural anthropologists will need to wait for my next entry for more on that.) Over 3000* evangelical French youth gathered in Valence, France to cultivate a missional mindset — Mission Attitude!

Stéphane Lauzet, president of the French Evangelical Alliance,
organized the event (with the help of many French evangelical youth leaders) toward the goal of mobilizing French youth to be on mission for Christ in a needy world

Pentecôte 2007 (see: www.pentecote2007.com)

I had a major role at this festival… I was one of the taxi drivers that enabled the youth group from the Eglise Protestante Evangélique de Dijon Est (Grace Brethren Church of East Dijon) to attend!

The Dijon GBC youth group


Jérémie (above) and Christelle (below) are our fearless youth group facilitators.


Christelle beat Baptist to the top on their climb to help provide computers for an African Christian organization

Tim joined our youth group for the weekend (there is no evangelical church in his village)

Phill cultivating a mission attitude!

"My mummy makes yummy sandwiches!" says Etienne, whose parents also played a vital role — they cooked for us throughout the entire weekend! Guillaume and Baptist (below) enjoyed the pool at Etienne's uncle's house where we pitched our tents to camp for the weekend.




Elise & Antonia had things well under control


Julien helping Terrence get a better view of the band


Cultivating an even greater appreciation for coffee than when I began working with French students in 1988 ;-)


Late nights made for stimulating breakfast discussions (lol)


The French Grace Brethren Churches were well represented: Amandine (above) is from the Chalon GBC & Melissa (below) from the Lyon GBC




Dijon was well represented. "J.T.M.," the main worship band at Pentecost 2007, is from the Full Gospel church in Dijon.


Matt Redman led a concert of worship that truly gave us a delicious taste of heaven


Redman & friends adroitly utilized lighting and ballet to amplify an already powerful time in God's presence, honoring Jesus — the light of the world


This gentleman shared how he turned from being a follower of Mohamed to become a follower of Christ


Timothée Paton shared how God called him from being a youth pastor in the north of France to helping and sharing Christ with street children in Cambodia

Especially pertinent were the stories by the mayor of a French village and a young woman who is today a high government official, of how they are serving Christ in the public arena. Of course there was theater, many other concerts, speakers, workshops and forums all to promote a mindset of being on mission for Christ wherever, whenever.

May France and places beyond be transformed by the small steps and giant leaps of these young people!

Brother Andrew, founder of Open Doors, issued a Zinzendorf-ish challenge to be willing to "do anything, go anywhere, at anytime" for Christ

* Just a note to remind you why France is truly a mission field, 1% of all professing French evangelicals were at this festival (3,500 people). In the United States, 1% of all professing American evangelicals would total about 980,000.

Praying in faith: exercise or expectation?

The dad was desperate. The qualified professionals could not do anything for his son who was in a really bad way.
I can relate. How 'bout you?

The Master arrived on the scene, heard the hubbub and inquired, "What's all the commotion?"
They were in a true-to-life horror movie; they needed an exorcist. The dad laments, "My son is mute, has seizures. I think he's possessed. Sometimes the demon pitches him into a fire or river to do away with him! If you can do anything, have a heart and help us!"
"If ?!” Retorts the Master, “Everything is possible for the one who believes." (Because belief— having faith—is trust in the All-Powerful God of the Universe.)
The quick-with-a-comeback dad replies, "I do believe. Help me with my incredulity!"
Jesus delivers and completely heals the boy.


Here is the introspective process that the Holy Spirit recently took me through to help me, a believer, with my incredulity.

When I pray, do I believe that God will do something? Or…
When I pray, is it a religious exercise that I perform without really expecting anything from my relationship God?When I pray, is there anticipation? Because God the Father loves me, His child, …
… that He will respond to my prayer as requested.
Or, that He will give me the strength to endure the situation.
Or, that He will surprise me by doing something of which I never dreamed.

Possibly He will respond in the next ten minutes.
Possibly He will respond ten years from now.
But do I really anticipate a response—in His way according to His agenda—because of the filial relationship that I enjoy with the Father in Christ?

To evaluate whether my praying is simply a religious exercise or done in faith, this test of relational expectation is helping me. Thought I would share the wealth.

Charis Partners in Madrid: Report (part 2)

In giving this report, I would like to thank publicly those who made possible the Charis Partners’ encounter in Madrid by means of a GBIM Leadership Development Ministry Grant. Please know that without your generosity I do not believe it would have taken place. Danke! O Brigado! Graçias! Merci!

Sincere heart-felt THANKS!

Part 1 of my report answered the question, “What were the discussion topics at the Charis Madrid gathering?” Part 2 will address direction, “What conclusions did you reach and what do you plan to do about it?”

Patty faithfully noted the content of our discussions — just 20 pages!

“In order to see their numbers dramatically increase we will seek to broaden ‘European Charis Partners’ horizontally and vertically.”
Officially, European Charis Partners were defined as remunerated church planters working outside of their country of origin. Their purpose was to begin new churches.

We decided, however, that the critical need is simply for more workers of all kinds. We, therefore, decided to expand the definition of what it means to be a Charis Partner. Vertically we want to include people from three life situations:
People on mission for Christ in 1) full-time secular employment, 2) full-time Christian ministry, 3) some percentage of both

Horizontally we want to include not just cross-cultural church planters (apostles), but also prophets, evangelists, shepherds and teachers (Eph. 4:11). Those who could receive remuneration would be catalysts for the creation of new ministries. Together we will pray, live and serve toward birthing a disciple multiplication movement.

We discussed the great needs of Europeans today. For example:

• people are lonely, devalued and lack hope
• families are falling apart due to time, financial and other pressures
• injustice is rampant throughout the West and the world…

We then distilled from the gospels, values to live by that would demonstrate how the message of Jesus is pertinent to real life, how it is truly Good News for Europeans.

“In order to see them dramatically increase their numbers Charis Partners will seek to become holistic people.” Being a Charis person means developing, adopting and living a Charis mentality and lifestyle.
Charis values, therefore, challenge us to:

1. live community
2. live sustainable family lives
3. share material resources
4. do good in Jesus’ name
5. pray and live by faith in hope.

What we plan to do in light of these conclusions:

1. Have people in all three life situations experiment with the Charis mentality and lifestyle over the next year, then come back together in one year to compare notes and pray. We are especially interested in seeing how this lifestyle impacts our witness.
2. Gather a handful of representatives from European Grace churches, Charis Partners and Grace Brethren International Missions to develop a vision and strategy. These will need to be understandable to unbelievers, to European believers and others around the world.
3. Develop adequate systems to promote the overall well-being of Charis Partners.
4. Provide a brief monthly communiqué to stimulate awareness and prayer.

Well, there was plenty more, but that is the abridged version of our discussions, decisions and direction. And in it all, we realize that we need to pray to the Lord of the harvest to send workers from his European harvest into his European field. Thanks to those of you who are joining us in imploring him to do just that.

Next year in Stuttgart!