Joyeux Noël ! A ray of life

To enrich your celebration of King Jesus' birth, I would like to share "A ray of life" with you. It is a blues song inspired by Isaiah 9:1-7 that some friends and I gave as a gift to our Dijon church family at last week's Noël party. Enjoy!

People walking in shadow
Perceive a glimmer of hope,
Those living in the pall of death
A ray of life they behold.

ombre de la mort (left): photo by Romain Hem-Reun

Anguish felt by threatened people
By peace is superseded.
Instead of contempt, oh so familiar
Dignity is now accorded.

A splendid light, a powerful bolt,
Sent from the Father, the flash that frees.
The King is born, the Son is given
Jesus is with us — Immanuel !

The luminary came to enlighten
The entire human race.
The will of enlightened man
Received him with hate.

Everyone who contemplates this lodestar,
Whoever welcomes him,
Receives forgiveness, truth and life
Thanks to this light bestowed.

Paul Klawitter's translation of « Un rayon de vie » de Paul-Raymond Delcamp 2008.
Used by permission
And I would like to wish each and every one a Christmas season rich in faith, hope and love!

Frohe Weihnachten
VESELÉ VÁNOCE
Nollaig faoi mhaise duit
FELIZ NATAL
Feliz Navidad
MERRY CHRISTMAS

Joyeux Noël !!!

Warmly from Paul & the ET

Back to school: pursuing dreams together

Harmonious teamwork means serving side by side as one person, for one goal. The art of this is to be of common heart and vision leading to coordinated action, and that without demanding uniformity.


So during the apostolic workshop we focused on moving toward thinking, guiding principles that ensure that we are all moving in the same direction, while allowing for creative and contextual variance. Then as we all move in that same direction, pursuing the same goals, we push toward the center of all—Christ (Colossians 1:17).

Apostolic Workshop, Dijon, November 20-23, 2008

The participants were asked to express share a guiding principle by having us guess which one they were presenting by using a picture, an object, MP3 song, a poem, PlayDough sculpture, mime…

Then they explained what the principle means to them, why they embrace it, what it is they do not understand about it, or why they simply do not agree with it.

We then modified our guiding principles which resulted in the following list:

Pray in faith
Do good in Jesus name
Be spiritually bold and culturally sensitive
Live what you want to reproduce
Minister sustainably
Cultivate hot hearts, sharp minds, skilled hands
Embrace a moving toward mindset
Contextualize church based upon metaphors
Be inclusive, not exclusive
Share resources, do not duplicate ministries
Partner with others of common heart and vision
In partnerships, give more than you get
Deploy multinational teams serving according to giftedness
Practice the hermeneutical cycle in a learning community
Cross-pollinate toward reproduction on every level
Pursue in dynamic tension, biblical truth, relationships and mission

As leader of the GBIM Europe team, I do not seek uniformity in the application of these agreed upon principles. With a multi-national team of about 45 people serving in multifarious ministries and radically different cultures, uniformity would at best be unwise and at worst successful.


To pursue our mission together, my teammates and I need to embrace a moving toward mindset. Paul Hiebert describes this “centered set” way of living, ministering and perceiving (see May 6, 2008 entry & Anthropological Reflections on Missiological Issues, ch.7): one defines the center and describes the relationship of the person/teammate to that center. Are they moving toward the goal or away from it?

Ultimately Christ is the center of all (Col. 1:15-20) and as we cultivate our relationship with Him (Phil.3:8) we go deeper into eternal life (John 17:3) and increasingly resemble Him (2 Corinthians 3:18).

Similarly, the GBIM Europe Team is pursuing common dreams in order to honor Christ. We are not all passionate about all five dreams nor pursuing them in the same way, but everyone is participating in the realization of at least one of them somehow. And we are in agreement that these are the dreams the Spirit has given us to pursue together on this continent at this time.


DREAMS TO HONOR CHRIST

DREAM 1: See vibrant spiritual communities peppered across the European continent—scattered throughout the countryside, penetrating the hearts of the megacities, and foraying into the world.

DREAM 2: See the Charis Partners dwarf the GBIM team; see two full-time Europeans for every one American.


DREAM 3: See the European churches become spiritual farms producing bumper crops of elders, evangelists and church planters, sending them out to the regions surrounding local churches and throughout Europe.


DREAM 4: See the Europeanization of the chateau ministry (the chateau is currently an American-run ministry in the heart of Burgundy France). Our dream is to bring together a multi-national team working according to giftedness ministering at and through the Chateau of St. Albain connecting people, churches and ministries across Europe.

The Chateau of St. Albain: a place where workers are equipped, where the weary find rest, a place of solace for urbanites, a place where faith is expressed through the arts, a place of prayer for the nations.

DREAM 5: See the European Grace Brethren churches, Charis Partners and GBIM Europe develop common vision that will lead to concerted missional action throughout Europe and beyond.

At the apostolic workshop we did not attempt to agree on “how” we would pursue these dreams; we agreed that these are our guiding principals and that these are the dreams that God has put in our hearts and heads, in this place, at this time, for this team… all to honor Christ who is the center of all that is.

Back to school: working on teamwork

About fifteen years ago I observed that "we talk about teamwork but we can't get teams to work."

I have since learned that staunch individualism combined with the firm convictions and drive needed to do church planting often result in poor teamwork wherever American missionaries are found.

But rather than rejoice in the fact that we may be averagely bad, GBIM Europe decided to tackle the problem. So Tom Barlow led 17 of us "back to school" to work on teamwork.


Tom first had us interact with Philippians 1 noticing that the personal pronoun "you" is systematically plural.

And Paul says to the Philippian church, “But whatever happens, you must live in a manner worthy of the Good News about Christ, as citizens of heaven." Here's how: "standing side by side, fighting together for the Good News," literally "in one spirit, one soul, side by side."

Then, Tom used Roger Peugh's doctoral thesis, "God and Teamwork: Implications of the Unity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit for Christian Ministry Teams,” to guide us along the path of healthy teamwork practices, practices found among the members of the Trinity:

love
trust
submission
honor
respect
fellowship
communication
mutual support
faithfulness
loyalty
clarity regarding personal identity

I found these principles insightful and practical; they allowed my teammates from Paris and me to work out some bugs in our communication.

I echo the words of one participant who said:

"I very much appreciated the training that Tom provided, defining God's priorities for the functioning of a team. I now see that I have some real work ahead of me to be up to these standards."

Workshop on teamwork
Château of St. Albain / November 18-19, 2008

Back to school: teachers' workshop

Many of us were trained to teach monologically; this was presented as the "Biblical" way of teaching. E.g. in Acts 20:7 one might get the impression that Paul soliloquized so long that Eutychus fell asleep and out the window!

Some people monologue rather well…

The verb dialegeto, however, is variously translated as “spoke” (NIV), “began talking” (NASB), “kept on talking,” “dialogued” (Birkey, 54), or “conducted a discussion” (BAGD, 185).

F.F. Bruce (425) comments, "A conversation rather than an address is indicated, a 'sermon' in the etymological sense of the word (Lat. sermo, 'conversation')."

Birkey (56) reminds, “We must not forget that the New Testament ideas of Christian education are built upon a ‘Hebrew model’ of the Old Testament, which placed the responsibility in the locus of home life (cf. Deut. 6:1-9),” the head of the household informally teaching those under his roof. Also in the Hebrew tradition, rabbis were known for their Q&A approach to teaching.
So some GBIM Europe teammates went back to school, sort of, to explore dialogical, interactive teaching.

(Note: We began gift-based workshops a few years ago to hone our skills and cultivate the gifts the Spirit has given us. Other workshops this year: apostolic, shepherds' and evangelists'.)

Susie, Tom, David, Roy, Scott, John & Louise
November 2008 Teachers' Workshop - Dublin, Ireland

Tom in action

Organizer Tom Barlow had us read articles on dialogical teaching and Günter Krallmann’s book, “Mentoring for Mission.”

He also asked us to share interactively on one of the following:

• What is the sermon you remember the best? Why?
• What person had the greatest impact on your Christian growth? What made their impact so powerful?
• Who is the person you have impacted the most? What methods did you use? What are the signs of your impact?
• What methods did Jesus use to teach / influence others?

Was the workshop helpful? Here are a few teammates comments:

I just want you to know that I had one of the best workshop experiences with all of you this past week! What a joy it was to be able to hear and glean from your rich experiences. Thank you all so much for letting God use you in my life this past week! God is using you in the European body of Christ to help me to grow. What a fantastic week!!! Thank you all so VERY MUCH! And Tom, Thank you for leading us in this great experience.
...

Let me add my thanks and appreciation to all of you for your part in making for a super experience during our days together in Dublin. Special thanks to Tom for creating an atmosphere in which everyone could feel free to share openly.
...

I will add my kudos and appreciation to the teammates who were [in Dublin] last week. It was a great time together and to experience some of what we were talking about, i.e. "withness". Great job, Tom, for prompting us and spurring us on. I am still trying to figure out which of the cats in the cat-herder clip I seem most like.

Some highlights that I mentioned in my presentation from Günter Krallman's book, Mentoring for Mission.

Spend quantities of quality time together
The “essential with-ness principle.” (19)

Mark 1:14 “that they might be with him.” (52-53)

“On the basis of such with-ness he generated a dynamic process of life-transference which was meant to foster wholistic maturity in his friends.” (13)

Consociation - togetherness
“Hence he made the experience of his with-ness the pivot of their training. 'Jesus had no formal curriculum'… no classroom syllabus. Instead, he called his disciples to be with him.” (53)

Coleman, “Truth was not taught in abstract doctrines or regulations; it was caught in the experience of their shared life.” (53)

“He first majored on making friends and only later on sending out apostles (Mk 3:14).” (55)

Discipleship
"The favorite image and the technical term Jesus chose for this action-charged procedure was ‘to follow’ (Greek akoloutheo) him as Master. He viewed discipling as life-transference through the channel of relationship, and not a mere intellectual absorption of certain theoretical precepts." (57)

Priority people come first
“Jesus made himself more readily available to them than to anyone else (Mk 9:30-31), took a special interest in their understanding of his teaching and mission.” (54)
“The time which Jesus invested in these few disciples was so much more by comparison to that given to others that it can only be regarded as a deliberate strategy.” (54)

CM: the reluctant bride

While postmodern Christ followers may condemn inherited church people of being Borg-ish (see last entry), modernist church leaders condemn emerging church people of being a reluctant brides.

Last year I team taught a course entitled, “Guiding Principles for the people of God in a postmodern world.” The most FAQ was how to make disciples — people who obey Jesus from a heart of love — among people between the ages of 20-30. Here is how participants expressed their frustration:

“Here is one general frustration I have: A lack of genuine commitment. Not just to spiritual things (church, personal study, etc.) but a lack of commitment in general. Commitment to work, to relationships and family.”

“Frustrations: They have a lack of commitment.”

“Frustrations [from a pastor under age thirty]… HIGHLY CAPABLE…yet low overall commitment… My frustration is in connecting with this group of people. Not just seeing them connecting for a while then disappear then re-appearing…they are a fluid group…which is cool and frustrating!!”
So can the Bride remain uncommitted?
Would that not frustrate the Groom?!

Marriage involves commitment that leads to greater depth of relationship and birth of society. Marriage represents the ultimate unity of spirit and soul, culminating in bodily oneness. From this union children are born.

Oneness requires the security of righteous acceptance, selfless encouragement, fidelity (no competitors) and unconditional love that “always protects, always trusts, always hopes, [and] always perseveres” (1 Cor. 13:7). Such security requires commitment.

One’s wedding day represents the ultimate commitment in human life, a decision of total partnership and sharing “for better or worse.” But for postmodernists, commitment and submission have resulted in the worst.

Translation: "You are divorcing dad. Why can't I divorce my brother? I can't stand him either!"

Many young people fear commitment because they have seen vows broken by their parents. Rampant divorce has hindered them from understanding the value of commitment, submission and sacrificial love—necessary ingredients to enter into the deepest of all relationships.

Invariably in the definitions of church that I have seen, some variation of the word “commit” shows up.

“believers who are committed to being a church…”
“committed to the authority of the Word of God…”

I attempted to define the church once (see Sept.8, 06 entry “homework assignment”). And quite frankly, the definition was not bad (as I unabashedly pat myself on the back). Yet, it was singularly unhelpful (as I slap myself on the back of the head) because it was unwieldy and uninspiring to me and incomprehensible to others.
As I reflected on this dilemma, it occurred to me that the apostle Paul described the church as a “she,” as a woman, a bride (Ephesians 5:22-33).

I realized that asking for a definition of the church would be like someone asking, “Paul, could you define your wife for me please?” The question just doesn’t sound right. Now, “Tell me about your wife,” that’s completely different.


You see, woman is the apex of creation—the beauty that reflects and appreciates God’s beauty, the holistic personality, the completion of all that was lacking in Man. Who will deny that women are not more beautiful, more complex and mysterious than men?!

The perfect woman…
And woman, specifically a bride, is what Paul uses to help us understand the complex nature and beauty of the Church. This metaphor challenges both the modernist tendency toward an institutional church and the postmodernist tendency toward an ephemeral church.
Jesus’ Church is not a business (contra some modernist views). Though the bride’s beautiful body is highly organized with organic systems, I cannot say that internal medicine has ever been the focal point of my relationship with my wife.
Jesus’ Church is not amorphous (contra some postmodernist views). As any groom will appreciate, the bride’s beautiful body has form!

And for local church to be Church, the postmodern allergy to commitment must be overcome so that the story can have the proper French ending, ils vécurent heureux et eurent beaucoup d'enfants jusqu'à la fin de leurs jours. (And they lived happily ever after and had many children)!

CM: Borg or bride?

“Every few hundred years in Western history there occurs a sharp transformation…. Within a few short decades, society rearranges itself—its worldview, its basic values, its social and political structure, its arts, its key institutions. Fifty years later, there is a new world. And the people born then cannot even imagine the world into which their own parents were born. We are currently living through just such a transformation.”
Peter Drucker, in Postmission, 74.

Drucker is in essence saying that fifty years from now we could be facing a world as starkly different to us as the Enlightenment would have been to the Middle Age monk. The West is undergoing tectonic cultural change. While these changes are fundamentally the same in Europe as in North America, the ramifications and outworkings can nonetheless be dissimilar.
A mentor of mine, Tom, would here interject his refrain, “You realize that we are living in significant times!” Indeed, and we church leaders therefore have a tremendous responsibility in guiding the people of God through the vicissitudes of the postmodern period into the pre-whatever-it-may-be future.

So let’s take a look into the future, and specifically, at the Tendara Colony in the year 2348…

This is story of Annika Hansen. Annika's parents were unconventional scientists who left Federation space, in their vessel the Raven, to perform experiments in pursuit of some unique secret theories. On Annika’s sixth birthday, they encounter a Borg vessel.



(Note: The Borg are a race of humanoids in Star Trek. The Borg claim to seek to "improve the quality of life for all species" as they pursue their quest for perfection. The Borg function as automatons, their minds are collectively connected to the Borg Queen. They are characterized by relentless pursuit of targets for assimilation, thus the show describes the Borg as "the ultimate consumer" against whom "resistance is futile.")



Annika’s parents studied the Borg ship for a long while, but Annika didn’t have a good feeling about all of this. With reason, because the Hansen’s scientific curiosity pulled them in to a trap! (add your own scary music here)

They are detected. Annika’s parents appear to have been killed. She is assimilated and raised as a Borg. Her Borg name becomes "Seven-of-Nine."



So, when she was very young, Annika lost touch with her human side. Seven-of-Nine has had no experience of socializing as part of an adult group. In fact, any individual characteristics she once possessed are now suppressed.


Many postmodern people feel this is what has happened to the Church, a beautiful young girl, the bride of Christ, has been assimilated by a sinister culture—modernism. Today, they feel, the church is more Borg than bride, more machine (read institution) than woman. She is emotionless, without community, and in the collective only one way of thinking is allowed.

But there is hope!


When the Borg are compelled to form an alliance with the crew of Star Fleet's U.S.S. Voyager, Captain Janeway requests that a single Borg act as a representative of the collective. Guess who is chosen?!

During a conflict, the Voyager crew is forced to sever Seven-of-Nine’s link to the Borg collective. She goes into shock and her human side starts to reassert itself, rejecting her Borg implants. With her human and Borg elements in constant conflict, Seven-of-Nine is in physical danger!

Her first instinct is to return to the Borg, but the Captain won't allow it. So the Doctor replaces many of her Borg components, making her far more human than she has been for nearly 20 years.

THE END (play your own happy music here)


To be continued…

Church Morphing: Foundationalism vs. Fresh Insight

What happens when people disagree on interpretations or understandings of a Truth in Scripture?

The postmodernist shrugs her shoulders and says, “Whatever… let’s live the Gospel.” The modernist digs in and refuses to budge until there is either uniformity of interpretation or separation.


An unfair description? Let’s call it a caricature, but one that I have seen in people of both mindsets—modern & postmodern. And this is what happens when emerging church theologians, who accept the authority and inspiration of Scripture, challenge foundationalism, accusing the Western Inherited Church of theological provincialism.

(Note: This entry will pick up on the article from the June 24 “ Church Morphing: hermeneutical community”.)

“Foundationalism is a theory about knowledge… about how claims to know can be justified. When we seek to justify a belief, we do so by relating it to (basing it on, deriving it from) other beliefs…. Foundationalists insist that this chain of justifications must stop somewhere; it must not be circular, nor must it constitute an infinite regress. Thus, the regress must end in a ‘foundation’ of beliefs that cannot themselves be called into question.” Nancey Murphy, Anglo-American Postmodernity (Boulder: Westview Press, 1997, 9). In Emerging Churches Gibbs, Bolger, 69.


But even postmodern philosopher like Michel Foucault whose “archeology of knowledge” admits no center or solid ground, did not slide into infinite regress; he depended upon philosophical principles to develop his reasoning.

So for Christian disciples what is unquestionably foundational?

Those who accept Scripture as the immutable foundation must also ask the questions: Am I willing to examine all else in light of Scripture? To what extent do we depend upon the convictions of those who preceded us as we “stand on the shoulders of giants”? Who are the giants? How do we know they were right?



DISAGREEMENTS & DISCERNMENT
Modernists espouse convictions such as “charismatic”, “pentecostal”, “covenantal” or “dispensational” as foundational, unassailable, to question them borders on heresy.

The emergence of terms like “post-charismatic”, “post-evangelical” and similar epithets indicates that some twenty-first century believers, employing a hermeneutic of skepticism, are not so sure that these schools of theology got it all right. They are more comfortable with embracing the Scriptures and ancient creeds—Apostles, Nicene, Chalcedonian, that which the ancient Church accepted as semper ubique ab omnibus (“always, everywhere, by everyone”)—as foundational.

For those who hold to adages like, “The Bible, the whole Bible and nothing but the Bible”, all else may be questioned in light of Scripture. Why?



Disagreements over that which is truly foundational—that which should be accepted without question—will occur. How therefore will one react? Or better, how should one proact?

I recently heard from a young disciple who wanted to create an adult Sunday School class by reaching people who were not yet Christians, or at least very new believers. “God blessed and a number of couples made commitments to Christ and were baptized and added to the church.”

He began to look for resources to help these people who needed Jesus, but who did not understand traditional "church speak." He shared what he was reading with his church’s pastors who, rather than discussing with him what he was reading or how he might better help these new believers, relieved him of his responsibilities because he was “into the emergent stuff.” He wrote candidly, “Frankly, I didn't know I ever was. All I thought I was doing was trying my best to respond to the call of God in my life as a lay-leader in the church, to learn what I could, to love people that God put in my path, and to try to help.”

He left the church and the church lost lost a good man who continues to pursue Christ.

PROACTIVELY SPEAKING
First, for those of us who embrace the Bible as absolute Truth, we need not fear questions. The twelve disciples constantly asked questions, sometimes outrageous ones, and it did not seem to shake Jesus in the least. He didn’t exclude them, he walked and talked with them some more until they got the point.



Second, disagreements are fine as long as attitudes remain godly. Unholy reactions, even over the questions of Truth and what Scripture means, do not receive God’s blessing and hinder the evangelical church’s mission—winning people to Christ, making disciples and planting churches.

"Space Giants" Sigh! They sure don't make TV shows like they used to…

When the watching world sees people who claim to follow Christ “biting and devouring each other” over interpretations and convictions, attitudes that Paul attributes to the flesh not the Spirit, unbelievers shy away (Galatians 14-18, note especially the sins listed in vs. 20—hatred, discord, fits of rage, dissensions).

When “factions” form, whether one be an emerging or inherited church proponent, we are rightly perceived by unbelievers as intolerant. We therefore get no hearing because we have violated true spiritual unity and belie the fact that the Father sent the Son because of his love for all people (John 17:20-23, Romans 14, Eph.4:3).

Francis Schaeffer’s prophetic voice still strikes a chord today (The Mark of the Christian, 190-1),
“But after [emerging and inherited church proponents] have done our best to communicate to a lost world, still we must never forget that the final apologetic which Jesus gives in the observable love of true Christians for true Christians.… This is what is needed if men are to know that Jesus was sent by the Father and that Christianity is true.”

Third, we do not need to have uniformity on secondary and tertiary theological positions (see qualifiers on June 24). Differing convictions can actually preserve facets of God’s grace that would be lost in a uniform, vanilla evangelicalism.

I agree with Nicholas von Zinzendorf, that collective convictions can be of God and that a denomination can serve as “‘a school of wisdom’ with its own particular contribution to make to the whole Body of Christ.” (A.J. Lewis, Zinzendorf the Ecumenical Pioneer, 1962,14).

In Europe where plurality is presupposed and dogmatism eschewed, I find that by explaining my conviction, respecting those who differ, appealing to the Truth of Scripture with the assurance that God indeed knows the perfect meaning, this approach usually gets me a hearing and at times open the door for me to influence the person for Christ.

Fourth, in order to prepare godly people empowered by the Spirit, who will lead local churches from modernist into postmodernist ecclesiastic forms founded upon Scripture and relevant to the culture (because that is the focus of these Church Morphing entries), believers need to have ownership of their theology, i.e. they must have heartfelt and mind-embraced convictions or those beliefs will not last once those enforcing adherence to a belief are out of the picture.

Giving the impression, accurate or not, that I have a virtually perfect understanding of Scripture and a virtually perfect application of Scripture smacks of Pharisee-ism and Laodicean-ism. And I dupe myself if I think that by simply telling a hyper-skeptical postmodern person what to believe, that those beliefs will be adopted. Oh how many stories I have to tell about that.


Lastly therefore, by encouraging believers to ask questions and seizing opportunities to join the asker in a study of the Scriptures, the Spirit can give fresh, commonly shared insight, and more pertinent application and forms.

The Spirit of Truth reveals the Truth of Scripture; we need not fear this but can pursue such an approach in faith. It helps disciples (whether modernist or postmodernist) to develop needed godly discernment in the Western climate of pluralistic information overload and to cultivate the spiritual reflex of seeking Spirit guided answers in the Scriptures accompanied by a mature believer.

Whew! So glad to know there are some things that never change…
Immutable: “unchanging over time or unable to be changed” (NOAD)

Admittedly foundationalism versus fresh insight is a false dichotomy. It nonetheless provided the platform to delineate often overlooked ways of moving forward into the future together—modernist and postmodernist to the glory of Christ and to the benefit of the world that needs him.

300 years later…

We will take a break from church morphing because I will be at the 300th Anniversary of the Brethren movement in Frankfurt, Germany from August 1-9.

The denomination of which I am part is a very large family that began in August 1708 when Alexander Mack and seven other disciples were baptized in the Eder River, near Marburg, Germany.

The exact location of the baptisms was in Schwarzenau

Three hundred years later, God has seen to bless Herr Mack’s household as these believers spread from Germany throughout the world sharing the Good News of Christ and planting churches.

Alexander Mack's high school photo?

The Grace Brethren are just one of the many, many branches of Brethren that came from those eight disciples. Today the Grace Brethren have churches and ministries in 28 countries.

Historically Alexander Mack’s extended family sought to:
...love Jesus, one another and the lost,
...be theologically conservative AND culturally progressive,
...be on mission—making disciples and planting churches.

So this celebration is pretty cool, because I, along with Alexander Mack and many of you, would like to see disciples and churches continue to reproduce throughout the Europe and the world.

And of course, we are simply following in the footsteps of a Man from the Middle East whose extended family has been spreading around the world for over 2,000 years.

So, I will be gone in Germany for a bit. If you think of it would you pray for the Spirit’s anointing as I lead some times of musical worship?

Vielen Dank !

Church Morphing: hermeneutical community

Newbigin called it a “circle” (1). D.A. Carson calls it a “spiral” (2). Others call it a “community.” Whatever one calls it, all are referring to hermeneutics and the need for multiple perspectives in order to move toward God’s understanding of the whole of Scripture.
We are coming to the end of this overview of basic issues that I see as critical to the evangelical church in a postmodern world where people believe that “all is flux, nothing stays still,” and “nothing endures but change” (Heraclitus).

“No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it is not the same river and he is not the same man." Heraclitus

This entry about the hermeneutical community will introduce nuance into discussions concerning absolute Truth and our understanding of that Truth. My position is that Scripture is perfect and my/our understanding of Scripture is imperfect.

I once shared this (critical realist) finite-understanding-of-the-Bible position with a friend of mine who heads the theological committee of his district. He retorted, “If that is so, how can we understand anything in Scripture with certainty?”

His legitimate concern is that we have an understanding of Scripture that is solid enough to build one’s life upon Christ and sure enough that one is willing to stake one’s afterlife upon Him.
The multiple perspectives provided by differing people-who-are-gifts (Eph. 4:11 apostle, prophet, evangelist, shepherd, teacher), from various cultures and time periods give us an ever greater certainty about our understanding of the Truth that is God’s Word.

I would like to set out some possible markers to distinguish levels of hermeneutical certainty: personal conviction, collective conviction, virtual universal truth, and absolute Truth.
Personal conviction
For “George” it was a sin to play European football (soccer). Now, I don’t know any reputable theologians willing to support that position, but before replying, “That’s ludicrous!” it is helpful to understand George. Before coming to Christ, soccer was his life, an idol that led him into all sorts of vice.

In case you have not yet seen the "Miss France vs. Miss Italy" parody…
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=v7R5Uwjj10E

So, in accord with Romans 14, George developed the personal conviction that for him soccer was sinful. The problem was, contra Romans 14, George imposed his conviction on everyone else.

In talking about differing convictions on controversial issues, I think Paul would say, “The man who [plays football] must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not [play football at all] must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him” (Ro. 14:3).

Concerning personal convictions the essential factor is to be right before God by living according to them by faith, while not imposing them on others.

Collective conviction
Martin, a friend of mine, is the pastor of a Full Gospel church. He does not hesitate to publicize evangelistic events that involve miraculous happenings. Now I do not share his conviction concerning sign gifts, so do not plan on participating in one of his campaigns anytime soon though I can pray that God will work through Martin, possibly in spite of some of the things he does.

But Martin is a man of God and we both preach salvation by grace through faith. So he and I joke together. He says that one day the Charismatics will get me back into the fold (I used to be charismatic). But I rejoin, “When we are both standing before God, we’ll see who is right!” (Of course, it is I ;-)

Photo by Joan Fontcuberta

You see, I have exegeted key passages, consulted commentators on both sides of the issue, and have investigated the theological and experiential history of the miraculous in Christian circles. But even though I can stack up exegetical support, heavyweight theologians and church history to support this “non-charismatic” (a singularly unhappy epithet) collective conviction, I could be wrong about how God works today. After all, there are more evangelical Charismatic and Pentecostal believers across the planet than of my persuasion. And they too, just like me, all know that they are right!

The point is that God has the definitive understanding on the question. And when we are face to face with him we will know who was right, who was wrong, and where each side had understanding and lack thereof. The same goes for controversial questions within a given denomination.

Virtual universal truths
Most all Christians since the second century accept the incomprehensible reality of the Trinity. This doctrine is virtually canonical even though the word is nowhere found in the Bible. It is as close as one can come to absolute certainty without being a direct quotation from the Bible. It is part of that which the ancient Church accepted as semper ubique ab omnibus (“always, everywhere, by everyone.”) Though no one is able to explain “how” God can be Three Persons yet One Essence, it is universally accepted as true and we build our lives by faith in the Trinity based upon this trustworthy understanding.
Absolute Truth
The Bible, in its original form, is perfect. It is an absolutely reliable, “authoritative disclosure of [God’s] character and will, his redemptive acts and their meaning, and his mandate for mission” (Lausanne’s Manila Manifesto, “Twenty-One Affirmations” N°3).
On a planetary scale, the Lausanne Conference practices the hermeneutical community by bringing together believers from cultures around the globe. By prayerfully studying the Scriptures together they help to protect the Church against theological provincialism and pursue that which is virtually evangelically certain, moving toward understanding Scripture the way God does. And they attempt to discern together how our Missionary God’s Spirit is moving today around the world.
So what happens when people disagree on what is Truth and what is understanding? This is what some emergent/emerging church theologians are doing when they challenge foundationalism, accusing the Western Inherited Church of theological provincialism.

To be continued…
(1) Foolishness to the Greeks: The Gospel and Western Culture, 51.
(2) Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church, 118.

Church Morphing: inoculation or innovation?

What would Henry Holsinger, father of the Progressive Brethren movement, have to say to the Grace Brethren Fellowship today?

“In its history the Brethren Church has retained the vision of being true to the Scriptures as understood by the founders of the Brethren movement. Henry R. Holsinger and other leaders of the Progressive Brethren movement thought of themselves as the conservators of the original Brethren ideals and interpretations, being progressive only in the application of these ideals to present-day life.” (Donald Durnbaugh, Meet the Brethren, 43)

Mr. Holsinger retained the absolute authority of Scripture and led people in culturally relevant embodiment of that Truth. Yet he was vehemently attacked for his progressive views (considered to be “worldly”) on higher education, Sunday schools, “an educated and salaried ministry, open denominational publication, and a deliberate policy of evangelism and mission outreach” (Durnbaugh, 43,69).
Of course the Old Order Brethren did the attacking. God ordained innovators today would never be the object of such ill-founded accusations from fellow Grace Brethren, would they?!

A friend tipped me off to CE National’s fireside dialogue on "Emergent Church Issues" by Dr. Mark Soto. I was surprised by a number of things.

FDR fireside chat

First surprise, it not easy to find. Go to > www.cenational.org > resources > fireside dialogues > emergent church issues.

Second surprise, when I revisited the site I found that CE National had “come under criticism” evidently for admitting that emergent or emerging church proponents* have recognized symptoms of real sickness in the evangelical church. It would appear that this admission brought on an accusation of being soft on Truth. I find allegations that attribute guilt by association to be singularly grievous.
Love should typify believers and love "believes all things" (panta pisteuei 1 Corinthian 13:7). Carson explicates Paul's meaning : "not gullible but generously open and accepting rather than suspicious or cynical." And Bruce adds, "put the most favorable construction on ambiguous actions."

PREVENTATIVE SUSPICION
In the 1990s, the French government used a tactic called “preventative suspicion” to inoculate people against religion by introducing fearful mistrust of unknown religious groups (Hervieu-Léger, Religion en miettes, 45). This was especially detrimental to evangelicals who represented less than 1% of the French population.

Preventative suspicion involved, for example, the 1995 publishing of a list of groups showing sectarian tendencies (parliamentary report by Alain Vivien, Les Sectes en France. Expressions de la liberté morale ou facteurs de manipulation ? La Documentation française, 1985).

In reality, this list held no legal weight as there was no legal definition of a cult. But the unofficial list of “cults” functioned to create doubt, suspicion and apprehension so that people avoided any unknown religious group fearing that it might be diabolical. The broad-scale effect of preventative suspicion was inoculation against the contagion of religion.

So what?

FEAR OR FAITH?
How CE came under fire befuddles this blogger who actually listened to Dr. Soto's (may I call him Mark?) message on "emergent church issues." Listen to Soto's mp3 and set fear aside. He and by association CE National clearly support the absolute Truth of Scripture. After all the great legitimate concern about the contagion of the emergent church movement is the loss of Truth, n’est-ce pas?
I suspect that critics have good intentions, being truly concerned about Truth. But in this case Truth is not in question. Do not these vague allegations unwittingly create a climate of preventative suspicion that inoculates people against aspirations of applying the Bible in relevant ways by faith?

Fortunately we have the example of Henry Holsinger who was guided by the Word and empowered by the Spirit as he moved forward in faith.
While I agreed with many of Mark Soto’s observations and was quite happy that he cited missiological works by David Bosch, Transforming Mission and Richard Niebuhr, Christ and Culture, I was left frustrated.

Why?
Dr. Soto catalogues a few of the emerging churches* grievances against the modernist church, and I applaud his acknowledgment that these are true weaknesses:

1. disunity between born again people (John 17:17-23)
2. lack of application of the Truth (James 1:22-27)
3. inability to reach the postmodern lost with the gospel (Matthew 28:18-20; 1 Corinthians 9:19-23)

My frustration came not with Mark as his presentation was rather even handed while he treated a volatile topic with kid gloves. I am frustrated that there is:

• recognition that the contemporary church is spiritually sick,
• an admission that “most of Christianity fails to understand the nature of the Church,"
• criticism of those who are honestly trying to understand the nature of the Church and cure her ills,
• no prescription for change.

If the church is spiritually sick then inaction that maintains the status quo, and in some cases forcefully defends it, does not strike me as a path that Jesus would advocate (Revelation 2 & 3).

After all, what if accusations against the modernist church are true in God's eyes?

Q1: If there is disunity between, for example, regenerate Full Gospel and Grace Brethren people, then what should be done about it? Or between regenerate inherited church people and emerging Christ followers?

Q2: If we do not control our tongues (or writings) or do not help widows and orphans, as James says, then what should be done to make our “religion” worth something in God’s eyes?

Q3: If we do not engage postmodern people with the gospel in a way greater than getting a message into their auditory canal, how are we obeying Jesus’ command to make disciples?

APPLAUD INNOVATION
I personally believe that deeper understanding of the nature of the Church will be found through missiology, innovative attempts to embody the Scriptural data (that we already know) about the church. (I could wax eloquent about the metaphors for church but will save that for another time and place.)
Rather than sowing suspicion, leaders should applaud postmodern innovators who embrace the Truth of the Word and seek to apply it in relevant ways by faith. I believe that a way forward helping to heal the local church's ills and begin new churches is to serve side by side with young mavericks.

Accusers beware! While some mavericks are unteachable renegades others are apostles & prophets.

Those innovators who follow in Holsinger’s footsteps, concomitantly embracing inerrancy and relevance, need to be protected, supported and resourced because even well-intentioned scare tactics can intimidate, causing these people to flee, or worse. The current wave of preventative suspicion could lead them to adopt a course of fearful inaction rather than one of action born from faith.

Some of us need to protect, accompany and resource young prophets as they attempt to heal the ills of the local church.

Some of us need to mentor, sponsor and coach young apostles as they begin new churches, churches that do not have the genetic predisposition to the illnesses listed above.

These innovators need freedom, not to tamper with Scripture, but to experiment with ecclesiology.

Hmm, was that Henry Holsinger who just shouted “Amen!”?


* I insist on accurate use of Dr. Tim Boal’s distinction between “emergent” and “emerging.” "Emergent" questions the Truth of Scripture while “emerging” embraces the Truth of Scripture while seeking freshly relevant ways of embodying that Truth. See "Getting Real About the Emerging Church" June 2007.

** “Xers are fully open to caring, one-on-one, personal mentoring by stable, secure people. In fact, even though it may seem that ‘we don’t need anybody’, we literally hang out for coaching, and, even more than that, fathering. We want someone to come alongside us and have input, give directions and keep us accountable.… We don’t want people telling us what to do, but advising us on choices and consequences.… but we really react against enticement or force by leaders intent on shoving us through the sausage machine.” Bevan Herangi in, postmission: world mission by a postmodern generation, ed. Richard Tiplady, p.2-13).

Church Morphing: "moving toward" theology

We often talk about spiritual life from God’s perspective as revealed in His Word. This entry, however, will look at life from a finite, human perspective — the only vantage point we have without the help of the Holy Spirit and divine revelation. And in this life, in every sphere of her/his being a disciple never “arrives,” but “moves toward” the goal, the ultimate goal being relational theology — knowing God.

To explore this positive growth aspect of sanctification we will look at dichotomous, fuzzy and relational mindsets.
(See also October 14, 2005, “Am I bound, fuzzy or centered?”)

DICHOTOMOUS MINDSET
The person with an "in or out" (bounded) mindset spends most of her/his time and effort in defining a clear “boundary and maintaining the boundary” (Paul Hiebert, Anthropological Reflections on Missiological Issues, 112). Variation is unacceptable because this "black or white only" thinking utilizes uniformity to preclude chaos in order to form a homogenous group.

The central question for the in or out, dichotomous person becomes, “Is the doctrinal position or person in or out of bounds?”
Exercise 1: Imagine that your church elders asked you to do year-end statistics. They want to know how many people came to Christ through their church’s ministry. What criteria would you use to determine the number of conversions in 2007?

Or, another way of looking at a similar question is, let’s imagine that you led Jack to Christ; upon what would you base your belief that he is regenerate? Possibly it would be something like this…
Me: “Do you think that Jack is truly a Christian?”
You: “Well yes. He prayed the sinner’s prayer in the Penn State locker room at 11:43 A.M. on Friday, June 15th, 2007.”
But can you or I, based upon Jack's locker room profession, unequivocally know that he is regenerate? No. Our understanding of his spiritual state is fallible; Jack may or may not be truly “born again”. Only Jesus can know that because He knows the heart. And Jesus tells us, “By their fruit you will recognize them.” (Mt. 7:16)

"But," we Westerners rejoin, "is Jack a McIntosh, Granny Smith, Golden Delicious, or… a bad apple?!"

Exercise 2: Which of these apples does NOT belong: a) McIntosh b) Granny Smith c) Golden Delicious d) Red e) Macintosh
(see answer below*)

FUZZY MINDSETIn or out / black or white only thinking precludes confusion and chaos, but it tends to exclude diversity and transform unity into uniformity.

Now Evangelicals typically seek clarity and eschew fuzziness. And with reason. A fuzzy mindset has no boundaries and accepts managed chaos.

One type of “fuzzy” thinking (extrinsic) says that Truth might exist, but we cannot know it (early liberalism). A fuzzy mindset views truths as pluralistically local, thus they can contradict other truths (pragmatic postmodernity). Another type of “fuzzy” thinking (intrinsic) believes that Truth does not exist (philosophical postmodernity).

Fuzzy example A: The Bible, the Koran and the Bhagavad Gita are different expressions of ultimately compatible spiritual truths (pragmatic, extrinsic fuzzy).

Fuzzy example B: “I swear that I am telling the truth, not necessarily the ‘objective truth’, but the truth of what I believe to be the truth… my testimony may be false, but I am sincere and of good faith; it is not a false testimony.”
(philosophical, intrinsic fuzzy from Jacques Derrida’s Faith and Knowledge, 97)

"testimony 2" from www.spookdesign.fr

Whether it be pragmatic or philosophical, the fuzzy mindset rejects either the knowability or the existence of metanarrative — any unifying story. But the Bible is a metanarrative, THE metanarritive, explaining the past, present, future, seen and unseen essentials for a life with God.

The people of God therefore cannot adopt a fuzzy mindset that denies universal, objective, knowable Truth of both God and His Word.

Exercise 3: Describe these snowflakes.
We tend to look at the commonalities that all snowflakes have. For example, each and every one is an ice crystal with six-fold symmetry.

But fuzzy thinker Michel Foucault, essentially sought the uniqueness of each and every individual snowflake. Foucault would have asserted, All you see is a block of frozen water. Or in Foucault-speak, All you see is an accumulation of hexagonally symmetrical ice crystals. You miss the fact that each and every one of those trillions of snowflakes has its unique beauty. By focusing on the commonalities, diversity is lost; the individual flake melts into oblivion.
The fuzzy thinker focuses on discontinuity, variations, facets and différance (Derrida). There is no “normal” because there are no norms. And a fuzzy, postmodern mindset rightly points out that by solely focusing on unifying elements one can miss, even destroy, uniqueness. It errs, however, when it becomes the polar opposite of the dichotomous mindset by denying universals.

Unfortunately, Evangelicals often equate the fuzzy mindset with a centered, moving toward mindset.

RELATIONAL MINDSET
Paul Hiebert explains that the moving toward (centered) mindset is a dynamic way of knowing. It describes how things “relate to other things, not what they are in and of themselves.” One defines the center and describes relationships of things or people to that center. “Greater emphasis,” therefore, “is placed on the center and relationships than on maintaining a boundary” (124).

"Centered" by Ruth Palmer http://eu.art.com/

So reconsidering the question of people coming to Christ, we focus on Christ who is the center of all that is (Col. 1:17). And all people (Christian or not) are either moving away from or toward Him. Instead of boundaries, there are signposts indicating the direction that the person is moving in relation to Jesus.
Signposts can be language like, “Jesus is the way,” as opposed to, "All paths lead to God." “I have never attended communion, but could I?” “I would like to be baptized.”

In Jack’s case above, only God can know with absolute certainty whether he is regenerate. “The Lord knows those who are his” (2Ti.2:19). We simply see Jack take a positive step toward Jesus through his “sinner’s prayer.” And we look for change (fruit) such as, “Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness” (2Ti.2:19). This is directional, an observable turning away from evil toward that which the Word of God has revealed as good.
The moving toward mindset goes beyond memorizing and teaching True facts about God. This qualitative orientation pursues relationship with God as He truly is — omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and immutably so. We imperfect, finite people seek better, deeper relationship with the Perfect, Infinite One, to know Him more fully. This is moving toward theology, ever growing experiential-spiritual-intellectual-relationship with God.

The faith is ultimately relational. The Hebrew mind was centered upon its covenant relationship with YHWH, the Creator, Judge and Lord known as “the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” (Hiebert, 125).
The gospel message is one of reconciliation. Trust in Christ’s atonement causes the believer to enter into relationship with God and reconciles one with others (2 Cor. 5:20; 1Jn.1:3).

We receive eternal life through faith in Christ. Jesus Himself said that eternal life is relational knowledge with God. “Now this is eternal life: that they might know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent” (John 17:3). An absolute Truth about the nature of eternal life is that it is relational.
Two primary criticisms that the emerging church levels against the inherited church are that it is weak on relationship and mission. I agree with both of those accusations.

One proponent claimed that the emerging church movement focuses like a laser beam on these two very biblical issues, “a reformation built around mission and relationship” (cited in D.A. Carson, Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church, 24).
Tim Boal (Building Authentic Community, 7) reports that an emerging church advocate complains “that the church uses structure to evaluate its effectiveness in culture rather than seeing its relationship to God and to Christ as the appropriate means for measuring such effectiveness.”

"Americans must count religion in order to see or show its value," observes Kanzo Uchimura (in Andrew Walls, The Missionary Movement in Christian History, 221). Instead of quantifying our religion, could we not imagine ways of looking at depth of relationship as a criterion for evaluating an individual's or church’s fruitfulness? The Apostle Paul did. He aggressively moved toward this qualitative goal (Phil. 3:8-15):

That I may gain Christ… I want to know Christ… Not that I have already obtained… this…. But one thing I do… I press on toward the goal… All of us who are mature should take such a view of things.

Paul's entire being — body, soul and spirit — was centered on Christ! He had a moving toward theology; he sought an ever growing relationship with Jesus.
Last exercise: If we were to establish the Holy Trinity as our center, how might we employ a moving toward mindset in our:

• understanding of His Truth (the Scriptures)?
• relationships with God and others?
• mission — evangelism, discipleship, church planting?

* Answer: a, b, c and e are truly “apples” based upon their intrinsic nature. The red apple "d" is actually a plastic table decoration ;-)

Church morphing: the return

After a three-month intermission and before I launch into thoughts on a “moving toward mindset” and the “hermeneutical community,” I thought it would be good to recapitulate the discussion on “church morphing."

These are principles that I firmly believe will help emerging leaders guide local expressions Jesus’ Church through the current postmodern era into the whatever-is-next epoch.

"What's Next?"
http://www.artbywicks.com/poetry%20page%202.htm

The blogs from which this list is taken (see Sept.19-Dec.17, 2007 entries: "backdrop of modernist church," "a worldly church?" "is truth the ONLY issue?" "truth or interpretation?" "secondhand convictions" and "imperfect understanding") also attempt to explain why expressions of true Church according to Jesus, ekklesia, must morph into fresh expressions in order to truly embody the essence of Jesus' desire for His Church in the 21st century.

BACKGROUND: MODERNIST CHURCH
The secular modernist promise was that ideology-embodying institutions would create a utopia-on-earth on behalf of the autonomous individual.
The Great Disillusionment that ushered in postmodernism occurred when 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.
Instead of ushering in utopia-on-earth, Modernism's focus on intellect/reason created hell-on-earth—the fires of Auschwitz.

Auschwitz, the archetypal expression of the modernist “death industry” (Zygmunt Bauman)

Modernism believed that: the intellect can deduce truth with absolute certainty, man will act logically, progress is inherently good, and the real world is material.

And lamentably, many 20th century Evangelical churches embraced philosophical modernism becoming reason-led, ideology-embodying institutions that catered to the autonomous individual. All too often intellect stifled spirit, institution squashed organism, and the individual dominated over community. Biblical essentials were filtered out of local churches’ ethos and praxis due to modernism's surreptitious influence.

FRESH EXPRESSIONS OF EKKLESIA
A widely accepted summary of postmodernism: “In simplifying to the extreme, one holds as ‘postmodern’ incredulity regarding the meta-narratives.” (Jean-François Lyotard, The postmodern condition, 7).

Postmodern people employ a hermeneutic of suspicion

In the pre-modern West the Roman Catholic Church was the arbiter of “truth"; under modernity, Science determined "truth"; in post-modernity, the individual is the final arbiter of "truth" - iTruth.

Modernism was hard, crystal clear ideology characterized by "seeing is believing." Postmodernity is a soft, liquid mood where "feeling is believing" and "friends" are all important.
While modernism’s deleterious effects have been descried, one must also remember that philosophical postmodernism has its own toxins; it inexorably leads to the loss of absolutes.
In contradistinction to the emergent church movement that is increasingly adopting philosophical postmodernism, thus questioning the existence of absolute Truth, Tim Boal observes:
“The emerging church… 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, June 2007).

And a primary motivator of the emerging church movement is reaching unchurched postmodern people for Christ, their structure being “missional in nature” (Bolger and Gibbs, Emerging Churches, 107).

“Imagine that! A reformation built around mission and relationship…”
(D.A. Carson quoting Chris Seay, Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church, 24).

Melding emphases of healthy modernist and postmodernist expressions of local church results in a tripartite focus in dynamic tension — the absolute Truth of Scripture, rejuvenating community and pertinent mission.

I believe that a path with promise for the future is that of gifted people (Eph.4:11) accompanying young leaders of missional communities, guided by the Spirit of God, studying and applying the absolute Truth of the Living Word in fresh ways in their localities. This forecasts firm footing and fresh expressions of true ekklesia in the whatever-is-next epoch.

Charis Europe (final report): creation process

As a starting point for the Charis Europe weekend, we adopted the theme, "Toward a love incarnate on mission." As people shared their hearts and thoughts, that evolved into "Good News incarnate and articulate on mission."

Creation processAlfredo was mandated by the representatives to take the next step toward common vision. He will draft a vision statement for Charis Europe based upon all that transpired during the Stuttgart weekend in February.

(See preceding four entries for details about this gathering of representatives from European Grace Brethren churches, Charis Partners and GBIM church planters.)

Fred and Alfredo (Charis Partners in Madrid & Lisbon respectively)

The members of the vision and direction workgroup will then refine the statement and submit it to the European Grace Brethren Churches for their modifications and approval.

Vision and direction workgroup: Marcus (left), Paul, Alfredo (yellow), Malcolm, Florent (right) and Rainer (behind the camera)

Once the vision is embraced by all, workgroups will begin fleshing out the concerted action that could possibly flow from the Charis Europe vision.

The various workgroups are:

Vision & direction
Where are we going & how will we get their together?

Discipleship, equipping, theological parameters & issues
How can we promote disciple reproduction (people who obey Jesus' teaching from a heart of love)? How can we share resources in order to equip more and more women and men in the European churches for apostolic, prophetic, evangelistic, shepherding, teaching and other ministries? What are the pressing theological needs of European believers today? What constitutes the theological component of our identity (common beliefs & convictions)? What are the essential doctrines and what are the differing convictions about which we will choose to practice Romans 14 acceptance of one another?

Youth & communication
European youth are a key to the present and so must be part of the creation process; they communicate constantly and are technologically savvy. Our hope is that a select group of young people will promote frequent and engaging communication utilizing sundry media to promote connections across Europe.

Franck does the web page for the Dijon church and graphic work for various groups

Mobilization for missionThe great need of our day is to move out in the name of Christ, to GO. And in doing so we hope to cultivate deep relationships one with another across Europe, relationships nourished, purified and deepened by the Truth of God's Word. The Château of St. Albain, the Saint James Way, Serve the City, Life Project and other groups, provide opportunity to serve together in Jesus' name.

Alan at the computer heads up Serve the City Dublin

Personal & collective spirituality
Without love for God, one another, and the people of the world, we are nothing (John 13; 1 Corinthians 13; Revelation 3). How can we fan the flame in our hearts for God and people in the midst of the 21st century cacophony of time and financial pressures, and leisure distractions?

Representatives of Charis Europe seeking God for guidance toward collective vision leading to concerted action

All of the representatives believed God had called us together. All recognized that God gave us unity. Now may God be pleased to give us that clear vision that leads to concerted action for His glory on the European continent and beyond.