Church - Julie Clawson

Captain Kirk on the Church

Posted on May 21, 2007July 8, 2025

In Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country Captain James T. Kirk stands trial before the Klingons for his ships unprovoked attack on the Klingons and subsequent boarding of their ship and murder of the High Chancellor. While Kirk denies any involvement (it is all a set-up to sabotage peace talks) he is convicted because as Captain he is responsible for the actions of his crew (regardless of his knowledge thereof).

My apologies to those uninitiated into the Star Trek universe, but that scene came to mind the other day in a discussion about church planting and the nature of the church. Church planters are often viewed as the captain of a ship – the entire responsibility rests on them. Of course a ship’s crew has their jobs that actually keep the thing moving, but there still is a captain on whom the responsibility rests. Whether the ship sinks or floats is on the captain. Even if the whole crew mutinies, it is still the captain’s fault.

Even in the Emerging Church/Missional mindset I still see that attitude applied to church planting. Granted that may be because most emerging/missional church plants are really just seeker churches that want to be trendy and actually talk about “the poor” every once in awhile. But its still the issue. The wellbeing of the church rests on the pastor and the success (read high numbers of people and money) of the church is something the pastor must singlehandedly accomplish. (of course this is sooo not an issue in our church plant).

Anyway, I personally think that whole concept is stupid. (how’s that for a thoughtful perspective)

If we are the body as the church, a community that has come together for a common purpose it seems kinda messed up for the “captain” to take all the glory or all the blame. I know I’m “low church” and so am not a fan of hierarchy. I don’t buy the whole pastor as spiritual head that must be submitted to thing. We talk often at church of it being a road trip that we are all taking together, but it still seems like the captain/crew mentality is the dominant paradigm. Not that I promote anarchy or some spiffy organic arcadian model (read- where nothing ever happens because we are all waiting for it to happen organically). I’m just hoping to find a balance somehow. Maybe its just me or perhaps there might be a whole lot more re-imagining of church needed before perceptions change.

Church Sign

Posted on May 8, 2007July 8, 2025

o I was out running errands today and drove past the local Baptist church that is our neighborhood crummy church sign contributor. They’ve been doing fairly well the last few months – nothing real offensive or overly cheezy. Then there is today’s (I recreated it with church sign generator) –

How do you read this?

Missions vs Missional

Posted on May 2, 2007July 8, 2025

I think I’ve become too used to the language of the missional church. The language that sees the Kingdom of God present in this world, that sees the good news as being about more than getting one’s butt into heaven when we die, and that takes seriously the call to bring freedom to the oppressed. So this past Sunday as I visited the church I grew up in, I wasn’t prepared to go back to the old perspective. That of a church doing missions as opposed to being missional.

My first clue should have been that it was the church’s missions conference. Missionaries from all around the world had been brought in to report on what they were doing. So the sermon that morning was from an Indian man who runs a Seminary in India. He was there to tell us about the “Divine Strategy for Missions.” As he put it – the way missions always has been and the way it always should be. The strategy is apparently composed of a mere four points.

1. Spreading the message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ – which as he explain is a lot easier in India than America because they allow prayer in schools.

2. Raising support from the believers – this has to come from Americans because indigenous people can’t afford to support missions.

3. Engage in social outreach – This is done only to soften people’s hearts because “physical help that doesn’t result in spiritual help is no help at all.”

4. Reach the influential in the community – because finding and using power is the only way to spread Christianity.

During most of his sermon he kept talking about the tiny tiny amount of Christians in India. But then at one point he said something about how Pentecostalism is really popular and spreading fast in India because they focus on healing so much (but that we of course know that the only true healers are doctors who have been gifted by God and trained at medical schools). So besides sounding more like a high modernist atheist than a spiritual Christian, he was drawing lines at who really are Christians. Apparently only those who follow cessationist conservative Evangelicalism are true Christians.

I’m sure there are good things coming out of this mission, I was just saddened at how limited a perspective they have. Serving Christ in a missional way involves so much more than getting people intellectually convinced about the facts of the Gospel. It is so much more organic and contextual than this “divine strategy for missions.”

Subverting the Empire Today

Posted on April 18, 2007July 8, 2025

In my reflections on Colossians, I would be remiss to ignore the news coming out of Turkey this week. Apparently, knife-wielding attackers slit the throats of three people at a Christian publishing house in conservative eastern Turkey yesterday. The Zirve publishing house had previously been the target of nationalist protests for allegedly distributing Bibles and proselytising.
Read the full story here.

Followers of the way of Christ trying to subvert the empire in Turkey are persecuted by those who oppose them. Sounds strangely familiar. Its all good to talk about how the letter to the Colossians encouraged the believers to follow a different way of life than that promoted by Rome and hint at the danger of spreading that message, but how does one respond to the same thing today?

The first thing that comes to mind is to wonder if it is the same thing. I don’t know much at all about this publishing house, what their intentions are, and how exactly they live out their faith. I’ve known enough missionaries to closed countries to not be naive about some of the manipulative and underhand ways they work for converts. The process often has little to do with making the world a better place or spreading Kingdom values, and everything about getting notches on their belts and getting butts into heaven. And I’ve also known some amazing people who care about spreading God’s love everywhere who are in the same places. It is interesting to note that it is often the churches that are most vocal about supporting the American government (the whole we have to submit to governing authorities thing) that are the most insistent about subverting other governments by illegally sending missionaries into closed countries (and yes, I know that officially Turkey is secular, officially). What was this group doing? Were they just trying to impose some Western conception of Christianity onto a foreign culture (exchanging empire for empire)? Were they there to persuade others that Islam is absolutely wrong and Christianity absolutely right? Were they there to promote freedom of knowledge and access to the Bible to those who desired it?

I don’t know what to think. I am pained by the hatred of the terror and violence. But the history of Christianity is seeped in the tradition of imposing one version of empire onto another’s. I am supportive of tolerance and respect for other cultures, but then wonder how to spread the hope of Christ in a way that continues to be loving and respectful. Subversion and tolerance – is there a balance? Should there be?

The Influencers

Posted on April 7, 2007July 8, 2025

From Mark at The Jesus Manifesto –

“I’m interested in your perceptions of influence in contrast to those who have actually influence you. Here’s how my little experiment will work. After each of the categories below, add people to the lists. If someone has already “taken your answer” put an “x” behind their name. Make sense? I’m assuming that some folks will add names to the list, but many others will agree…some folks will have lots of x-es after their names.

Once you’ve added to the list and posted on your site, please leave a comment here. I’ll try to keep the list updated. Oh, and please don’t list yourself or your own blog or your own community.”

Who do you think are the two most influential Christian spiritual leaders today (in North America)?

1. Rick Warren xx
2. Joel Osteen
3. T.D. Jakes
4. Joyce Meyers x
5. Jim Wallis x

Who do you think are the two most influential emerging Christian spiritual leaders today (in North America)?

1. Brian McLaren x
2. Rob Bell xx
3. Todd Hunter
4. Tony Jones

Which two Christian spiritual leaders (in North America) do you think are most worthy of being influential?

1. Eugene Peterson x
2. Ched Myers
3. Rich Nathan
4. Diana Butler Bass
5. Jim Wallis xx
6. Brian McLaren x

Which two churchy or theological blogs do you think are the most influential?

1. The Jesus Creed xx
2. Real Live Preacher x
3. Tall Skinny Kiwix
4. Jollyblogger

Which two churchy or theological blogs have influenced you the most?

Which two North American church communities do you believe are the most influential?

1. Willow Creek xx
2. Saddleback xx
3. Lifechurch.tv
4. Vineyard Columbus, Ohio

Which two self-described emerging/missional (North American) communities do you believe are the most influential?

1. Solomon’s Porch xx
2. Mars Hill (take your pick) xx
3. Imagio Dei, Portland

c
Which two North American church communities do you think are most worthy of being influential?

Church of the Savior (Washington, D.C.)
A Catholic Worker house…take your pick
Oscar Romero Catholic Worker, Oklahoma City
Koinonia, Georgia
Apostles Church, Seattle WA
Vintage Faith
St. Sabina (Chicago, IL) x
Mars Hill, MI x

The People Formerly Known as the Congregation

Posted on March 30, 2007July 7, 2025

So this is buzzing around the blogosphere. As a pastor am I allowed to post this? to agree with this? Enjoy –

From Bill Kinnon –

“Let me introduce you to The People formerly known as The Congregation. There are millions of us.

We are people – flesh and blood – image bearers of the Creator – eikons, if you will. We are not numbers.

We are the eikons who once sat in the uncomfortable pews or plush theatre seating of your preaching venues. We sat passively while you proof-texted your way through 3, 4, 5 or no point sermons – attempting to tell us how you and your reading of The Bible had a plan for our lives. Perhaps God does have a plan for us – it just doesn’t seem to jive with yours.

Money was a great concern. And, for a moment, we believed you when you told us God would reward us for our tithes – or curse us if we didn’t. The Law is just so much easier to preach than Grace. My goodness, if you told us that the 1st century church held everything in common – you might be accused of being a socialist – and of course, capitalism is a direct gift from God. Please further note: Malachi 3 is speaking to the priests of Israel. They weren’t the cheerful givers God speaks of loving.

We grew weary from your Edifice Complex pathologies – building projects more important than the people in your neighbourhood…or in your pews. It wasn’t God telling you to “enlarge the place of your tent” – it was your ego. And, by the way, a multi-million dollar, state of the art building is hardly a tent.

We no longer buy your call to be “fastest growing” church in wherever. That is your need. You want a bigger audience. We won’t be part of one.

Our ears are still ringing from the volume, but…Jesus is not our boyfriend – and we will no longer sing your silly love songs that suggest He is. Happy clappy tunes bear no witness to the reality of the world we live in, the powers and principalities we confront, or are worthy of the one we proclaim King of Kings and Lord of Lords.

You offered us a myriad of programs to join – volunteer positions to assuage our desire to be connected. We could be greeters, parking lot attendants, coffee baristas, book store helpers, children’s ministry workers, media ministry drones – whatever you needed to fulfill your dreams of corporate glory. Perhaps you’ve noticed, we aren’t there anymore.

We are The People formerly known as The Congregation. We have not stopped loving the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Nor do we avoid “the assembling of the saints.” We just don’t assemble under your supposed leadership. We meet in coffee shops, around dinner tables, in the parks and on the streets. We connect virtually across space and time – engaged in generative conversations – teaching and being taught.

We live amongst our neighbours, in their homes and they in ours. We laugh and cry and really live – without the need to have you teach us how – by reading your ridiculous books or listening to your supercilious CDs or podcasts.

We don’t deny Paul’s description of APEPT leadership – apostle, prophet, evangelist, pastor, teacher. We just see it in the light of Jesus’ teaching in Mark 10 and Matthew 20 – servant leadership. We truly long for the release of servant leading men and women into our gifts as apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers. We believe in Peter’s words that describe us all as priests. Not just some, not just one gender.

We are The People formerly known as The Congregation. We do not hate you. Though some of us bear the wounds you have inflicted. Many of you are our brothers and our sisters, misguided by the systems you inhabit, intoxicated by the power – yet still members of our family. (Though some are truly wolves in sheep’s clothing.)

And, as The People formerly known as The Congregation, we invite you to join us on this great adventure. To boldly go where the Spirit leads us. To marvel at what the Father is doing in the communities where He has placed us. To live the love that Jesus shows us.”

ReGathering Journal Cont.

Posted on May 4, 2006July 7, 2025

The third session at the ReGathering revolved around the metaphor “letting go of jeans that no longer fit.” I found this particular image amusing and rather apropos to my post pregnancy state. The talk brought up instances of when people had to leave ministry positions for various reasons. My discussion group also focused on letting go of things that don’t fit within the church context itself.

We discussed how often we create ideals of what we think church is or what we want church to be. Those conceptions are not always a true representation of church or the best thing for the church. Sometimes we are comfortable with how we do things, but we need to always remember that our ways are not always God’s ways. I was intrigued how in this particular gathering this idea could be discussed from a variety of perspectives as an intellectual and not solely emotional concept. All too often the unbiblicalness or unholiness of an idea seems to rest on the accusers dislike of it. It’s the Christian cliché of the day to call whatever one dislike “unchristian.”

What was refreshing at this gathering was the willingness to take a step back and examine our preconceptions. The idea is to consider what the purpose of a church (and the church in general) is and therefore to consider if what we are doing aligns with that purpose. If something doesn’t align why are we doing it? Because it is comfortable and we have always done it that way? Because we won’t acknowledge a program has passed its peak and we don’t want to offend those who put so much time and energy into it? Because we read certain books and uncritically think that coffee, candles, and couches are cool? If things don’t fit the purpose of church then we need to let go. And yes – sometimes that means letting go of that particular thing and sometimes it means letting go of the church. God’s ways are not our ways and perhaps he just might have better things in store.

Mentoring Women

Posted on June 30, 2005July 7, 2025

Something that will be addressed here a lot is the issue of women in the church and the obstacles they face in it. I had a conversation recently about the lack of women being mentored in the church. Even in churches that support women in ministry there is a lack of women being trained and mentored. We realized that part of the reason that this is stems from a desire to respect and protect women. In this day of lawsuits and stuff, most men will not be alone with a women. Men seem afraid of either temptation, judgment of others, or of false accusations and so avoid ever being alone (or have personal conversations) with women. Part of that fear is to keep themselves safe, part of it is out of respect for women. But the result is that while men still continue to raise up more men to be leaders in the church, no one is doing that for women. Something that in one sense is intended to help actually hurts. How can this be overcome? Do men just have to face the fear and take risks? Or are the structures that mentoring takes place in now need to be re-examined?