Some thoughts on the proposed new mission statement for Stonebridge

A couple of weeks ago Becky and I attended a Friday night meeting at church where the church leadership discussed their notional new mission statement for the church. While this statement is still a draft, and has yet to be presented to the full congregation, with the pastors’ permission I want to explore the new statement in some detail and explain why I’m very much in favor of it.

First, the statement:

“The mission of Stonebridge Church is to walk alongside each person we meet as they take their next step with Jesus.”

Let’s look at some key phrases.

  • “to walk alongside”. I am more and more convinced that this is the posture that we as Christians should take with all those that we encounter. We are not enemies in opposition of those who don’t believe the way we do; we are not self-righteous, hypocritical mockers of those whose sin is more obvious; we are not insulated saints who retreat to the comfortable hidey-hole where everything is “safe”. Instead, we are right there alongside people, where they are. We have an arm around their shoulders and we are speaking words of love and encouragement. We need to be alongside both the lost and the found, among the rebellious and the repentant alike.
  • “each person we meet”. This phrase reminds us that our calling isn’t limited to the church but is as expansive as each person that God places in our path. The heart of the believer is to be outwardly-focused, and a heart filled with the love of God will overflow into each one they meet.
  • “as they take their next step”. This recognizes that all of us, believers or not, are still in progress, taking one step at a time. It reminds us to be gracious with each person we encounter, because they are on a journey just like we are, even if they’re at a different point. And it reinforces the message of 1 Corinthians 3:5 - 8: that we may each play a different role in God’s work to bring someone to Himself. Whether we plant the seed or water the seed or see the seed blossom into flower, it is God providing the growth, and we are reminded not to be discouraged if our work doesn’t create instant results.
  • “with Jesus.” And this brings us back to the ultimate object of our lives in service to others: to bring them to, and encourage them with, Jesus. Whatever work God calls us to do, it is done out of love for Jesus, in the name of Jesus, and for the glory of Jesus. Whether you are serving on the stage or behind the scenes, publicly proclaiming Christ in the midst of a crowd or quietly sharing with a friend or co-worker, working for justice in a far-off country or just caring for the weak and needy person on your street, you do it for Jesus. God has given diverse roles and functions, but puts us all together in one body, and says that it is the body of Christ (1 Cor 12).

I feel like this mission statement does a good job of capturing the essential direction of ministry that we’re already on at Stonebridge, and I hope that as it is further refined and rolled out it will encourage each of us to be constantly mindful of being alongside those that we encounter every day.

Another take on 'Hipster Christianity'

Back in August I linked to a piece by Brett McCracken wherein he decried what he sees as the evangelical temptation to “be cool” at the expense of real, genuine faith. My initial read resonated with the column, and I was a bit surprised when some folks I quite respect took issue with McCracken’s book.

I’ll admit that I haven’t read the book, and absent a copy finding its way into my hands for free, I probably won’t. However, I came upon an insightful review today that puts McCracken’s book in a different (and much less favorable) light.

James K. A. Smith, posting on TheOtherJournal.com, says that McCracken needs to add the word “poser” to his lexicon.

McCracken’s analysis ends up being reductionistic: he thinks anyone who looks like a “hipster” is really just trying to be “cool.” This, I think, tells us more about Mr. McCracken than it does about so-called hipster Christianity…

McCracken sets his sights on his own generation: hip millennials who are taken with incense, hemp clothing, Wendell Berry, and Amnesty International. McCracken is worried that this is just the next generation of cultural assimilation in the name of relevance.

But his analysis only works if, in fact, all hipsters are really just posers. That is, McCracken effectively reduces all hipsters to posers precisely because he can only imagine someone adopting such a lifestyle in order to be cool. Let me say it again: this tells us more about McCracken than it does about those young Christians who are spurning conservative, bourgeois values. [Emphasis in the original.]

Smith acknowledges that there are, indeed, Christians who are trying to be “cool” or “hipster” simply for the sake of being cool, but he asserts that they are the “posers” and are not representative of the “Christian hipsters” he knows:

In short, the lives of the Christian hipsters I know are a gazillion miles away from being worried about image or trendiness; they live the way they do because they are pursuing the good life characterized by well-ordered culture-making that is just and conducive to flourishing—and this requires resisting the mass-produced, mass-marketed, and mass-consumed banalities of the corporate ladder, the suburban veneer of so-called success, as well as the irresponsibility of perpetual adolescence that characterizes so many twentysomethings who imagine life as one big frat house.

I very much appreciate Smith’s review and analysis and recommend it as worthwhile reading.

Also Bring Cold Water

Responses from right-wingers and evangelical Christians to the so-called “Ground Zero mosque” have been spread broadly throughout the cable news media and online news and opinion sites over the past few weeks. Initial responses were typical God-and-country red meat, proclaiming Ground Zero to be “hallowed ground”, and declaring that allowing Muslims to build a mosque on that site would be, (to borrow a tired phrase,) to let the terrorists win.

This response, despite the patriotic fervor with which it was proclaimed, has now finally widely been debunked (including a great bit by Frank Rich today in the New York Times). First off, the proposed building isn’t a mosque, but a cultural center. And it isn’t planned for the “Ground Zero” World Trade Center site; it’s actually two blocks away. And similar “hallowed ground” within a two-block radius of Ground Zero houses an off-track betting establishment, a strip club, multiple fast-food restaurants, and several souvenir shops (just to name a few), so it’s not like the whole area has been somehow ‘set apart’. And finally, what does it say about our belief in religious freedom if, after due process has been followed, we then want then government to prohibit the building of a religious center based strictly on the particular religion in question?

Those points may not yet have gained full acceptance, especially among Republicans looking for an election-year issue, but in general I’ve seen them make inroads in he past few weeks.

But yesterday on the Christian group blog Evangel, a post by Tom Gilson (a strategist with Campus Crusade for Christ) brings up what I believe will be the next round of argument against the project: saying that if we look at this strictly as a religious liberty issue, we are making the mistake of believing that Islam is simply another religion.

[A friend] views Islam as a religion that deserves the same rights and privileges as any other. That’s questionable, to say the least….

If you think the Ground Zero mosque comes down to a simple matter of symbolism, or of religious freedom, then you don’t understand the issues deeply enough.

Instead, the author proclaims, Islam is a way of belief whose ultimate goal is domination, and that if we don’t watch out, America will simply be Islam’s next conquest.

On this topic I have heard and seen much from both sides. I have read Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s chilling account of growing up in Somalia and her passionate assertion that Islam, as a religion, denigrates women. I have also heard first-hand from a Zimbabwean Christian pastor who warned that the Islam he encountered in Africa was intent on conquest. But by the same token I have worked for many years alongside Muslims who are gentle, family men, who had no aspirations but to provide for their families and to live here peaceably as neighbors and friends. (And, let’s face it, I can no more fairly hold all Muslims responsible for 9/11 than they can fairly hold all Christians responsible for Timothy McVeigh, Aryan separatists, and, oh, the Crusades.)

The more I think on this subject, the more I am convinced that once again right-wing Christians like Mr. Gilson have mixed up their politics with their religion and gotten it wrong. Nowhere does the Bible instruct us to protect our turf, to repel the unbelieving alien, and to presciently foil those who might intend to persecute us. But it does instruct us, often, to love our neighbors. To turn the other cheek when wronged. It reminds us over and over that our battles are spiritual battles, not physical ones. That Jesus already is Lord, and that we need not fear what mortal men can do to us.

We should stop fighting new mosques at every opportunity, and stop making enemies of dear people for whom Christ died. Instead, we should follow Christ’s command and love them.

It’s time to apply Jesus’ teaching about giving both coat and cloak. If someone comes and says ‘give us land to build a mosque’, don’t just give the land; also bring cold water (in the name of Jesus) to those who are laboring to build it.

Catalyst Compassion "Moment": Amazing or Exploitive?

My internet friend Bryan Allain posted a video on his blog this morning of a moment that happened at the recent Catalyst conference in Atlanta. 

I’ll summarize for those of you who don’t have 10 minutes to watch the video: it’s an amazingly touching story.  A young man from Africa is there live, on stage in front of 12,000 people, telling about his childhood growing up in severe poverty, of a sister who died as an infant from malnutrition, and how then in early childhood he was given a place as part of a Compassion International school and was sponsored for over a decade by a man from Canada. The young man is now a student at Moody Bible Institute and sponsoring his own Compassion child.  An amazing story that makes me want to go out and sponsor a Compassion kid right now. 

But then, in an Oprah-esque moment, the conference emcee asked “have you ever met your sponsor?". 

“No”, the young man replied. 

“Would you like to?”

And then they brought out the Canadian man who had sponsored him for all these years.  And in an incredibly moving scene, the young African man just completely (and understandably) broke down.  After a long embrace this young man could do nothing but sit on the floor and sob, completely overcome with emotion and gratitude for this man who had caused such a change in his life.

I was very torn, watching the video at that moment, between on one hand appreciating the emotions of the situation and on the other hand being disgusted by the planned exploitation of this young man’s emotions for the sake of a “moment” at a conference.  The emcee, himself choking up a minute later, said “we script this for me breaking down…” which, of course, means that they did script it expecting that the other two would break down.

So what do you think?  Am I being hard-hearted here?  Or were the producers of the Catalyst conference so sucked into the current reality TV culture that they crossed the line of intentionally manipulating people’s emotions just to create a “moment”?