Christian Pacifism

On the Turning Away…

On September 9, 1980, five years after the Vietnam War and a mere four years from the celebration of America’s Bicentennial, an activist group called the Plowshares Eight broke into a General Electric plant in Pennsylvania and hammered violently on the nose cones destined to cap nuclear warheads. This was not the first kinetic protest for at least two of the activists, the brothers Daniel and Philip Berrigan. The Berrigans were well known among the Catholic antiwar and antiviolence community, following the tradition forged by others like Justin Martyr and Dorothy Day before them. Pacifism rooted in their Christian faith could not exist as mere doctrine or theory; for these men and women it must move from Word to action.

Christian pacifism is more than opposition to war; it is an intentional assumption of the reality of the peaceable Kingdom of God as inaugurated by the coming of Jesus. Shalom is the pervasive state of being in that kingdom as the Bible describes it, and the pacifist insists we are to labor for that peace in every situation, regardless of the personal cost. Because the pacifists within the Church usually gain the ‘activist’ label and seen as outliers from the rest of millions of believers, the central question to be addressed is not why they govern their lives by a biblical principle of peace at all costs, but what interpretative framework has enabled most Christians to respond indifferently to this issue and view non-violence as an optional belief?

The Berrigans did not root their pacifist worldview in philosophy alone. They interpreted the Bible as though it meant what it said and that the word of God demanded obedience and action. The Plowshares movement involved in the Pennsylvania protest took its name from the beautiful passage in Isaiah chapter 2 [cf. Micah 4:1-5] about the peace of the Kingdom welcoming all people to come under its comforting protection. Verse 4 paints a powerful picture of the core of this divine promise:

4 He will judge between the nations
and will settle disputes for many peoples.
They will beat their swords into plowshares
and their spears into pruning hooks.
Nation will not take up sword against nation,
nor will they train for war anymore.

Isaiah 2:4

Father Daniel pointed to this verse as his authority to action, to be moved toward “doing it.” (Kierkegaard). “To the Plowshares community, this text of Isaiah has been a summons—a vigorous word, a word that sets the human in motion.”  [1]

Isaiah’s prophetic allusion to future kingdom peace is not a one-off reference. A handful of chapters later, he prophesies that the warrior’s tools will again no longer be necessary, saying, “Every warrior’s boot used in battle and every garment rolled in blood will be destined for burning, will be fuel for the fire.” [Isaiah 9:5] The prophecy does not end with just foretelling peace at some undefined point; it continues saying that this peace will come with the Messiah:

6 For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
7 Of the greatness of his government and peace
there will be no end.
He will reign on David’s throne
and over his kingdom,
establishing and upholding it
with justice and righteousness
from that time on and forever.
The zeal of the Lord Almighty
will accomplish this.

Isaiah 9:6-7

As Jesus makes his gospel announcement then, “The kingdom of God has come near” [Mark 1:15], believers should see prophecy fulfillment and take to heart both the present reality of that kingdom and the different life expected of its citizens. If Jesus is the Prince of Peace, then the lives of his people are to be marked by shalom. The pacifist presses this claim to its logical end: there can be no situation in which violence can be the solution to any situation for the Christian.

It is the authority of Scripture and its application to life that separates Christian pacifism from its secular-humanist counterpart. In simple terms, the humanist chooses the path of pacifism because the consequences of violence and war are damaging to other humans, both aggressor and defender alike. The argument assumes that all people can see this harm and come to the same ethical position, wanting to avoid the pain of violence, everyone living happily counting on everyone else wanting them to live happily. Fallen human nature, however, inveighs against this. The Christian pacifist is more clear-eyed about the damaged souls of humanity and obeys a different authority; he or she takes Jesus and His kingdom seriously and obeys the imperative to ‘turn [to them] the other cheek also” and seeks the blessing of being a ‘peacemaker.’

Father Berrigan’s application of Isaiah 2:4 reveals a core tenet of the committed pacifists within the Church: they hold firmly to the belief that the kingdom of God is a present reality in the world right now, even though it is not yet fully realized. This immediacy of the Kingdom of God is to prompt an urgency in the believer to live by kingdom values and ethics now and witness to this truth. A specific ‘existential’ hermeneutic is in view here, best explained by Kierkegaard [2] and his description of the Bible as a mirror. He argued the scriptures are perfectly clear, and the Bible presents truth in such a way that it should provoke a radical, life-changing response in the believer. To read the words of Jesus concerning non-violence and the seeking of peace is to hear a command to citizens of the Kingdom to live their lives in a like fashion. In the same stream of thought, Kierkegaard says that Jesus is not a historical figure simply to be admired; He is a prototype for Christian living. The Lord’s portrait in Scripture is given as it is to move us to imitate His life. If Jesus was non-violent and seeking peace in all He does, so must we. From this hermeneutic, the philosopher insists, believers must reach the conclusion that taking a life in war (or other violent action) is inconsistent with kingdom values and the teaching of Jesus. From this hermeneutic a pacifist is born.

As with many of the modern applications of biblical truth to the life of a believer, the interpretive framework one brings to the teachings of Christ is going to be a major determinant of what position you take on pacifism, and to a further extent, general non-violence. Shalom-Peace is a holistic concept extending beyond the lack of war or physical violence. In the biblical sense, the idea of wholeness communicated by shalom expands our idea of how we will pursue peace; it includes the principle of non-violence but justice as well. Will the same invitation to sacrifice your other cheek call you to sacrifice your treasure, time, and life to see similarly violent injustices continue unabated? A pacifist can insist that they will not join the military and kill another human being in war while still turning a blind eye to the oppression and discrimination that visits equally detrimental violence on those same people. Jesus is clear that citizens of His kingdom will live differently. Their lives, marked by kingdom principles, will serve as a winsome invitation for others to commit to Jesus and have their lives shaped by the same values. Early church father Tertullian offers further reasoning attributed to the redemptive project of which the kingdom is a part. He teaches Christians dare not take the life of a person whom Christ purposes to redeem.

Unlike the clear prohibition against murder in the Ten Commandments­­–“You shall not murder.” [Exodus 20:13]–the Messiah gives no such direct command. Instead (cf. Kierkegaard), Jesus offers Christians the prototype of His life of peace, a life that was studiously non-violent, modeling the ideal for citizens of the Kingdom of God. The kingdom principles He teaches are embodied in the life He leads, teaching His followers that this life is not only possible but desirable. There are many avenues to peace and even to the well-being of shalom. Pacifism in the Christian community chooses that path which they interpret as most closely adhering to the Lord’s teachings and the model of His life. Many within the kingdom will not elect to walk that same path, but there is much to be gained by giving their framework and principles a second look.

Notes:

[1] Isaiah. Berrigan, Daniel. Fortress Press.

[2] cf: Christian Discourses and Works of Love, Kierkegaard, Soren

The Price of Pacifism

Is pacifism a luxury belief?

Pacifism is not a philosophy defined by a single belief. It encompasses a range of positions regarding nonviolence in the face of aggression. Pacifism is a costly position. The reality of violence will demand a costly response, ranging from complete surrender on principle to the use of overwhelming force in defense. The cost of holding a pacifist position requires consideration, as these costs cannot be avoided or dismissed. Pacifism for one comes at the expense of another who will use force in defense of the right to hold that ideal. Philosophy like this is very costly.

Twentieth-century philosopher Bertrand Russell was a pacifist. He summarized his position by saying that “[T]here is almost always a way, though sometimes a much slower way, of doing things without violence.” Russell invited people to view war with the same revulsion that they view the murder of an individual, and he sought widespread adoption of his idealism from the supposed safety of the academy. His ethic, developed through a mindset of consequentialism [1], set the foundation for his nonviolence ethic. The calculus for arriving at this moral position was binary for him: he believed that war is always bad and produces no good outcome; therefore, we must avoid it at all costs. For Russell, pacifism was not a passive moral position. He lived out his beliefs as he stood in active opposition to World War I, writing for pacifist publications, protesting the government’s conscription of young men, and advocating for many to adopt the mantle of conscientious objectors. The exercise of his principles was costly. Russell lost his university position and was later jailed by the British government for his attacks on their foreign policies. Russell paid an extraordinary price to remain true to his position of nonviolence.

With a historical event like either of the World Wars, we can perform a thought exercise involving the adoption of nonviolence as a system of political belief. Suppose Russell were successful in persuading the Crown and the entirety of the British Empire to adopt pacifism. Would nonviolence have persuaded the German coalition to drop their weapons as they examined the consequential outcomes of the war for themselves? This simple case study points to the multifaceted nature of examining pacifism. In its most straightforward application, pacifism is the belief that war or any kind of violence is not to be used to resolve conflicts. This is a good and admirable, even desirable, position if it can be a principle that avoides fighting. To stand in an extreme position on refusing to meet violence with violence, an individual must be prepared to give their life as the cost of their stand. Pacifism on the national level requires a second consideration. If, like Russell, an individual will pay any societal cost for adopting this position, then it is a noble stand and one’s life can be arranged in such a way as to adhere to it. The cost of adopting pacifism as a political philosophy that governs a nation containing several million individuals becomes much more costly in a world filled with potential aggressors who do not share the same belief. The cost of extinction by their violence is not a price all will be willing to pay, nor should they be expected to.

Over time, Bertrand Russell changed positions on his commitment to nonviolence. The philosophy of pacifism has a history of evolving as it collides with reality. Nonviolence is not a monolith but a graduated spectrum of degrees of absolutism. Russell’s initial position was ‘absolute nonviolence.’ This was characterized by the belief that all violence of any degree was always morally wrong. The absolutist position would maintain that even in situations of self-defense or protection against a greater evil, violence is not to be used. The cost of adopting this position on the nonviolence spectrum is quite high unless every other human and human institution adopts the same position. (This question of absolute non-violence is examined further in the next essay about Christian Pacifism and the command to “turn the other cheek.”) Shortly after the initiation of World War II, Russell’s view of pacifism changed from an absolute position to what he referred to as ‘relative political pacifism.’ It is notable that here again, consequentialist reasoning moderates his position. Russell continues to believe that war is always evil, but faced with the violence of war, engaging the enemy might be the lesser evil in contrast to the aggression. In a calculation of cost/benefit, the price of nonviolence in the face of aggression and the potential loss of national sovereignty from an invasion of his home, Russell judged the evil of aggression to be greater than the evil of fighting back and stepped back from the extreme position.

Approaching a discussion of nonviolence requires the consideration of multiple arguments. A central consideration in the adoption of pacifism is how to address the prevalence of violence in the world. Its existence contributes to the evaluation that the price I, as an individual, will absorb is not the same cost that a country must pay to hold the same national belief. A commitment to absolute nonviolence on a nationwide scale demands the agreement of every citizen, each of them clear as to the existential cost of not taking up arms. Should one citizen demur, it would be a dereliction of the social pact to leave them unprotected from violence.

Personal pacifism is noble, and commitment to absolute nonviolence is commendable, but the cost of holding this position is often repressed. If I have the freedom to commit to nonviolence because the nation I live in has a strong military force to protect me from aggression, the cost to me is low. But that cost, however, transfers to those who take part in the defense. Pacifism is a luxury belief in that I can transfer the cost to others. Consider the same scenario borne out on a local level. Nonviolence can be my default when I live behind the walls of a gated community with a strong police force to enforce my separation. Can my neighbors in every part of the community have the same opportunity to exercise their commitment to nonviolence?

A pacifist may object to the theme of this essay on the grounds that it misunderstands or misstates the moral force of their philosophical position. As Russell discovered in his move from an absolute to a more relative position, the principles are challenging to implement. This is partly because pacifists claim that they are not arguing that nonviolence is safe nor free of cost. Their central principle is philosophical rather than practical: participation in violence is morally abhorrent and corrupts the individual or state, even in situations where it appears unavoidable. The arguments surrounding the cost transfer are also nuanced. The pacifist may be fully prepared to surrender their life or freedom rather than abandon the principle of nonviolence. Labeling pacifism as a luxury belief cannot be one-sided. It must take this individual into account.

Pacifism may rightly be viewed as a luxury belief secured by those willing to rise in defense of one who insists on total nonviolence. Until the world is at peace and every human being makes a similar pact of nonviolence toward others, the need for security will demand at least some citizens be willing to fight. The range of pacifist positions, moving from absolute nonviolence to the recognition that sometimes violence is thrust upon us, is a spectrum of philosophical ideals that are worth examining. Nonviolence is an excellent position, but it is a costly one.

Notes

  1. Consequentialism is a philosophical view that the moral rightness of any action can be determined by the consequences of that action. If the action produces an overall good, then it is a morally right choice. The opposite is then also true: negative results make an action morally wrong. The most apparent challenge in this philosophical exercise is the determination of ‘good.’

Peace Makers

Peace is the aim of war. With such an important intention, we must commit ourselves then to carefully defining the word. What is peace? By what standard do we infuse the word peace with meaning? A philosophical approach to defining peace may consider many competing values to derive meaning for the term. The Christian must see only shalom.

The defeat of an aggressor may win peace, but surrendering to an attacker may also result in the same peace. Going to war to overcome existential evil may bring about the conditions for peace. Ceding territory or sovereignty might be the seeds of peace. How we define peace, and the experience of gaining or having peace, draws from almost infinite perspectives of winners and losers. Peace as the aim of war is a complex topic. As we work to understand the relationship between war and peace, we often conclude, as President Lyndon B. Johnson did, saying, “In modern warfare there are no victors; there are only survivors.”

The nuance required in thinking about a definition of peace demands a careful approach and the use of wide-ranging sources. If peace is the aim of war, can we have in mind a condition that is simply defined as the cessation of kinetic conflict? Is tranquility or calm composed solely of the absence of rancor? A simple explanation of the term will probably default to a dictionary definition that says peace is calm in personal circumstances and a state of concord or harmony when mentioning the topic in the geopolitical sphere. But what—we must continue to ask—will we do and not do to achieve this experience of peace? What cost will we pay? Is tranquility achieved through “any means necessary” an acceptable approach? Philosophy gives us myriad arguments from which to build our understanding and definition and the range of perspectives will lead to many a rabbit hole. Some philosophers will proffer the notion that seeking peace through any level of violence, destruction, and the loss of human dignity needed is acceptable to success. Peace—declared in these terms­ ­—as an aim justifies a full display of might. We will also have to consider an equal number who say that peace is best achieved only through pacifism in all its range of meanings. One-sided definitions are common, but are they ideal?

Christians should derive their description of peace from different sources. The Bible is to be the primary reference, and the definition will expand through the teaching of God’s people through history. Two words primarily define peace in the Bible: shalom in the Hebrew and eirene in the Greek language texts. Shalom is a state defined by much more than the absence of conflict. It carries the meaning of completeness, of a state where everything is as it should be. The word shalom carries the weight of God’s design for the world He made being ‘good.’ It is the shalom that is disrupted by the Fall in the Garden, and it is the restoration of shalom that is the aim of God’s redemptive work in history. Eirene carries the same definition in biblical Greek as a noun, but key texts use the word to describe those who pursue peace. Jesus famously declares “Blessed are the peacemakers [εἰρηνοποιοί]”, blessing those who actively pursue peace in conflict to the good of all parties. Devoting oneself to the pursuit of peace brings the soul into accord with the heart of God in Jesus as Paul writes in Colossians; “For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace [εἰρηνοποιήσας] by the blood of his cross.” (1:19-20)

Shalom and its cognate, eirene, have their root in the heart of the God of Peace [Romans 15:33; 1 Thessalonians 5:23]. This means that any definition we use must reflect the holistic concern that God has for all of creation. There are no winners or losers in war in God’s vision of peace. There are only image-bearers on both sides whom He wants to have an all-encompassing peace. And this peace is multifaceted. It is tranquility and security that are matched to justice and wholeness. The defeated need to be treated justly, as this gives them their sense of security. This security contributes to the tranquility in which they rest, not having to be constantly seeking to right injustice at the hands of the aggressor. A life of serenity is possible through the restoration of and provision for human dignity. Ensuring this justice and maintaining this dignity is the responsibility of the victor. God demands of His people that they live out his heart of shalom.

To speak about war, we must be clear about our definition of its aim, peace. Peace as an aim of engaging in war should govern the decision to go to war and the manner in which we fight in war. The choice to go to war, particularly as an aggressor, must include the consideration of how the violence will conclude in such a way as to ensure the dignity of the defeated people. Many people may read this prescription as idealistic to a fault, especially in this day and age of weapons that can effectively destroy the world many times over. Christians are not given the option to view this humanizing perspective as unrealistic. We must pursue every aspect of life, including war or surrender, with the heart of God as our primary source of definition and our guiding principle.

How to Think About War

The original post from which this essay stems was published nearly 20 years ago. There has been much geopolitical and spiritual change over those two decades, and I thought it important—during today’s heated discussions of war in Iran—to revisit the topic and the essays related to it. My aim in rewriting and republishing these is not to persuade toward one position or another. Rather, it is to encourage Christians to examine how they think about topics such as war. My hope is that we will devote ourselves to honing the tools we use to guide or control and express our positions on serious topics, including war. Once sharpened, these same intellectual and spiritual tools enable us to think about and speak to other political and cultural issues of the day from the perspective of a soul enrobed by the Spirit of Christ and devoted to the Lord.

In the multitude of evils that are a part of human experience, war and the destruction and carnage that follow in its wake rank in the top tier of wickedness. War has been a constant of human history and, despite the promise of the transforming power of Jesus Christ, He said that we “will hear of wars and rumors of wars” (Matthew 24:6), that it will be with us until the end of days. Given this constant from Jesus, a Christian’s worldview should be discipled in a biblical way of considering political violence and to have a framework from which we determine our thoughts and actions in relation to the act of war. The Christian is under competing pressures from being a citizen of the Kingdom of Christ and, simultaneously, being a good member of society. Many questions come our way in the ‘already, but not yet’ life we live. Shall we declare ourselves to be conscientious objectors when the country that supports the foundation of our religious liberty is under attack? Can we determine for certain that a war is ‘just’ in the classical definition of the term? Is pacifism the only acceptable stance a Christian can take? These questions sketch some ideas that a spirit-led Christian must wrestle with in approaching the Christlike commitment to seeking peace amidst the ongoing reality of war.

There is a substantial body of work created by Christian and secular thinkers to which we can turn to shape our thinking on the subjects of violence and war. Christianity through the centuries has engaged the full range of philosophy toward war, from full participation to absolute prohibition. If asked, can you define your position and defend it in the heated arena of ideas? Taking a prohibitionary stance that disallows Christian participation in war, for example, is simple to hold but challenging to explain when it means that not-yet-God’s-people non-Christians must be sent to fight in one’s place. Coming to a settled position on this and other hot-button issues of the day requires a familiarity of multiple topics that all contribute to the discussion. The philosophy of ethics is important in considering Just War theory. The imago dei must be held against the use of violence in creating or preserving peace. To engage in the arena of ideas demands that we be able to understand the positions of those with whom we might disagree.

The Bible is the primary resource from which Christians develop their beliefs and worldview, and even a cursory knowledge of the text shows us that war has been a reality for God’s people throughout history. Early in the Old Testament we encounter widespread war commanded by God of His people. In the book of Joshua, we turn the page to be confronted with wars of outright aggression fought with the explicit intent of taking  territory. Yahweh sends Israel into battles of conquest with the instruction to “not leave alive anything that breathes. Completely destroy them…” (Deuteronomy 20:16-17) and to Joshua (Ch 6) the command is to see to the total destruction of Jericho, soldier and citizen alike. This same God will later stand on a mountainside and pronounce a blessing on those who seek peace (Matthew 5:9) and press His listeners to “love their enemies” (Matthew 5:44). The Christian not only needs to hold these (seemingly) contradictory points in hand but devote themselves to knowing the God who gives them and try to understand what lies behind the commands. New questions arise that shape our position: Is God in support of war, despite the destruction and loss of life that follow? What of the words of Christ that even non-Christians can quote to ‘turn the other cheek’ in the face of evil? Is God of two minds? Certainly not, but the complexity of thinking about war and how Christians should think through the topic is clear.

As difficult as the subject of war might be, we must consider the topic to some depth as disciples. We should be able to articulate the position we hold with clarity. The importance of our gospel presence requires of the Christian that we soberly and carefully determine the position we hold given our calling to be light in the dark world.

So Many Good Books in 2024

And A Couple of Lousy Ones

“When I have a little money, I buy books; and if I have any left, I buy food and clothes.”
― Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus

The calendar turns to January, a new year begins, and once again, it’s time to review my reading for the past year. There are fewer books overall this year and a fair number of books were “read” by listening to them (shown on the list as (A)). The count was an intentional choice on my part. Seeking better books and spending more time with them took precedence over the filling of shelves. In looking at the selections of paper versus audio books you can see how I approach each medium. The overwhelming majority of my theological reading is done in paper form so that it can be notated and readily accessed once entering the library. The books I “read” in audio form enable me to explore my diverse interests and engage a variety of topics. It’s also my chance to enjoy my guilty pleasures of Jack Reacher and Harry Bosch novels while working in the garden. In many cases, the audio book inspired me to purchase a companion paper copy as I wanted to give it a second read with a pencil and straightedge in hand. Good marketing Amazon!

“Where is human nature so weak as in the bookstore?”
― Henry Ward Beecherr

A practice that has encouraged multiple reads and improved my understanding of complex material is the making of book notes. These notes are generally thoughts derived from the highlighting and marginalia in a book. Their purpose is to record the most important aspects of a piece of literature in a form that  can serve me for research and writing purposes without having to search my shelves for an idea contained in my reading. I make these notes in Evernote so they are searchable and easily referenced when needed. It is a time-consuming process, but the benefit is priceless; I am rethinking through the material in the book as I make each note, and this process has been beneficial in building depth to my understanding of the selected topics. If this sounds like a benefit you would like to have for yourself, you need not start at this depth. Start by making chapter notes in the empty spaces in your current read. Summarize each chapter on the last page to see what you’ve learned. Outline the book on the blank pages in the back to see if you’re tracking with the author’s thoughts. Make the book your own.

When I have completed each book, I record the date of completion and my rating in the front cover before placing it into my library. My rating system is simple. Books rated 5 of 5 are the best. These are books that are memorable pieces of writing that deserve to be read, notes taken and thought about. Those rated as 4s are also worthy of reading and notation, but perhaps just once. The middle tier is a 3, and this is simply a good book. Those rated as 2 or below come with a warning. Don’t waste your time. Also, don’t ask to borrow these books as they do not have a home in my library. There were only a couple of 10s this year and one was a reread from years past. A 10 is an invaluable book, a must-read that I would recommend to anyone and everyone interested in the topic. Anything noted as (x…) means that it was reread. I intend (someday) to reread all of my Lee Child and Michael Connelly, having moved many of them from state to state. How many books do you have in this category?

TitleAuthorRating
Being God’s ImageImes10
The Divine Conspiracy (x2)Willard10
The Shaping of Things to Come (x2)Frost5
Embracing GraceMcKnight5
Gospel Fluency (x2)Vandersteldt5
Practicing the WayComer5
Unlimited Grace (x2)Chapell5
Transforming GraceBridges5
Rejoice and TrembleReeves5
The Mission of GodSchell5
Scripture is SupremeChester5
Covenant & God’s Purpose for the WorldSchreiner5
A Resilient Life (A)MacDonald5
The Art of LivingEpictetus4
Jesus the King (x2)Keller4
Someday is TodayDicks4
By Grace Alone (x2)Ferguson4
The Grace of GodStanley4
The PracticeGodin4
The Promise of GraceChappel4
Renewal for the 21st CenturyWerning4
How to PrayTorrey4
All it Takes is a Goal (x2)Acuff4
Knowing the SpiritHinn4
The Ministry of the Missional ChurchVan Gelder4
StormCymbala4
The Essence of the Church (x2)Van Gelder4
FactfulnessRosling4
Forgotten Ways HandbookHirsch4
The Kingdom of GodSchreiner4
The Forgotten Ways (x2)Hirsch4
ReJesus (x2)Frost4
The Death Christ DiedLightner4
The SecretChild4
The Lord’s SupperWaters4
SacrilegeHalter4
The Creative ActRubin4
Excellence Wins (A)Schulze4
The Black Echo (A)Connelly4
Mind Shift (A)McManus4
Unreasonable Hospitality (A)Guidara4
Choose Your Story (A)Hall4
Trillions (A)Wigglesworth4
It’s Never Too Late to Begin Again (A)Cameron4
Missional CommunitiesMcNeal3
HandmadeRogowski3
The Difficult Doctrines of the Love of GodCarson3
Writing for Busy ReadersRogers3
Church Turned Inside OutBerquist3
Expecting the UnexpectedPearring3
Who Needs Theology? 3
Twelve and a HalfVaynerchuk3
Strangest SecretNightengale3
RevivalGaines3
Everything IsManson3
Primal FireCole3
If Only You Would AskRogers3
The Mission Always WinsBolsinger3
Shaped by God’s Heart (x2)Minatrea3
Apostolic PrioritiesRichards3
Missional Map MakingRoxborough3
Words MatterBallard3
Redeeming the RoutinesBanks3
AndHalter3
The Focus ProjectEqualman3
Sharpening the Focus of the ChurchGetz3
Hell Yeah or NoSivers3
Praying the PsalmsBrueggemann3
Running Blind (A)Child3
Co-Active CoachingKimsey3
Nothin’ But A Good Time (A)Beaujour3
The Last Array (A)McManus3
Chasing Daylight (A)McManus3
The Perfect Story (A)Eber3
The Miracle Morning (A)Elrod3
The Creative Curve (A)Gannet3
Love People, Use Things (A)Millburn3
Butcher’s Work (A)Schechter3
Drowning (A)Newman3
Goals and Vision Mastery (A)Brown2
Unlikely Thru-Hiker (A)Lugo2

Sharing a Vision of Revitalization

Carry the Fire

The challenges and complexities intrinsic to church renewal demand a single, shared vision for the revitalization to have a hope of being successful. Whatever contributed to the decline will have left lasting marks and lingering infirmities. The culture at large will continue to ignore or outright denigrate the Church and her practices. Countless uncategorized factors will actively impede the renewal process. To maintain momentum and direction against these headwinds, a church determined to find new life must have a single vision of its new life shared among all those who commit themselves to the journey. Everyone must own the collective vision, and leaders must carry that vision and when darkness and doubt close in, raise it as a torch to push back the threatening shadows and light the way forward.

Photo by Kevin Finneran on Unsplash

A clear vision, shared by the church, encourages continued forward movement even when various hurdles present themselves on the way. A shared vision recognizes that obstacles are not limited to external factors alone, there are various internal realities that can hamper the pace of renewal. Years of decline are almost always evidenced by limited or depleted resources. A vision of renewal will need to be narrowed in the early segments of the journey so that these limited resources (monetary, human, etc.) can be marshaled and dedicated to the near-term goal. The renewing church also cannot be everything to everybody. A shared vision enables us to say (without constant turmoil) what we are called to be and also what we are not called (at this time) to be. The renewal vision serves as a touchpoint for everyone as the horizons can be easily pointed out, obstacles recognized and agreed upon and the goal(s) used as an ultimate authority when alternative directions present themselves.

Developing a statement that can support these requirements is not a simple task. A vision for revitalization must consider the Bible’s purpose for the Church, the Holy Spirit’s intent for your church, and the local context in which Christ has planted you. A vision for revitalization is a tool that will be put before the Renewal cohort as often as possible. Unlike countless church vision statements, it will not be printed, framed and placed on the lobby wall and then forgotten. The shared vision is rehearsed, again and again, in the same the Bible repeats mention of God’s goodness, His grace, His love; participants need to be reminded of the reasons they are laboring, committing their time and resources, perhaps even suffering. Another important facet of developing the renewal vision is that it need not be “once for all time”, the authors can be comfortable viewing the vision as temporal. The church can develop a vision for the first leg of the journey (return to “health”, address the issues that led to decline, et al.) and then discard it in favor of a vision of the next horizon. Taking this attitude enables the renewal journey to be envisioned as a series of intermediate goals leading to longer and longer horizons, making each one eminently reachable.

A shared vision is much more powerful written in that light; if the vision is to be owned by each member of the revitalizing church, write it in community. The composition of this group includes the members of the congregation, to be sure, but also the living Word of God, His Holy Spirit and a composite view of the neighbors blessed by the new life of the church. The vision must be biblically grounded which automatically narrows the scope of the vision as to the purpose of the Church and, unless an immediate move out the location is in the cards, the vision must also consider the local conditions, people and realities that the church is meant to serve.

Writing the renewal vision as a collective exercise leads to the likelihood that everyone will take spiritual ownership of the statement, and that they will be spiritually dedicated to the vision and the Giver of the vision. Ideally, as the renewal vision takes the form of spiritual commitment, the body will recognize the necessity of praying together and praying deeply. The renewal group must not be satisfied with perfunctory prayer asking for blessing and guidance at the writing sessions. Renewalists must pray deeply together seeking to be shaped and emboldened and committed to reaching the goal of the vision. They must pray to be changed as needed to accommodate the demands of the changed realities. The group must pray to be fully sacrificial in their own comfort, their own wants, and perhaps with their own treasure. It is essential that the renewal cohort pray together to experience the guidance of the Holy Spirit as one. They need to hear the laments of those who have lived through the decline, the heart-hopes of those who see a glimmer of new life, even the struggles of those who are having a hard time with the changes that accompany the journey. Prayer is not an optional adjunct to the renewal process and it cannot be limited as a requirement for the pastor and elders alone. It is essential that the first commitment of the church, especially when desiring renewal, is to be a praying church. We must always keep before us the quote of Matthew Henry, “When God intends great mercy for His people, the first thing He does is to set them a-praying.”

Prayer is fueled by scripture and the congregation journeying toward revitalization should commit to collectively read and study God’s word, alone and together. The effect of regular immersion in the bible is well documented (“a lamp unto my feet”) for personal growth. Bringing this individual study together in a group setting deepens our understanding of the Bible’s story as we gain insights from one another, seeing truths revealed by the Holy Spirit to another. Renewal reading and study build renewal confidence as we collectively believe that what God has powerfully done in the past, He can easily do again (Hab 3:2). Deeper knowledge of what God reveals in the Bible makes the travelers more sensitive to what they are seeing and experiencing on their current spiritual journey.

The power of a shared vision for the renewal of a church is undeniable. As the leaders step out ahead, taking determined steps to lead the life of the body back to vitality, the vision lights the path, imbues confidence, and serves as the true north for aligning the map and plans. Leaders will need to be consistently rehearsing the vision before the renewal cohort, reminding them of its importance and painting a picture of where they are headed. When a glimmer of light is seen on the horizon, the leader must point out the sometimes-faint light for all to see. The leader must be guide and interpreter on the journey, pointing out landmarks and teaching their importance. He or she should be sensitive to making note of where God is at work in the life of the church and making sure that these events are memorialized. There is little more powerful than pointing out how God is working through or blessing or clearly guiding a church. Placing these divine interactions in the context of the shared vision builds the encouragement for the next step, the next week and the next year.

The Mission of God by Justin Schell

The Mission of God and the Witness of the Church

The missio Dei, or the mission of God, is the context in which every other theological event takes place. Creation, the fall, the Cross, the calling of Israel and the Church and the new heavens and new earth all have their place as moments along the timeline of God’s mission. As important as this topic is, the Church today can be fuzzy on the definition of missions, and especially the mission of God. As Schell says, “When an important word like mission becomes so elastic that its meaning is cloudy, significant questions arise.” In the first pages of this excellent book, he offers this working definition that sets the stage for the rest of the material. Mission, Schell says, is “…God’s revelatory work intended to establish a divine-human communion within creation.”

The missio Dei is not a peripheral theological topic, it is central to understanding God’s actions at every point to reveal Himself to creation in such a way as to gather a people for Himself and so to have a perfect, blessed communion with them for eternity. Schell has done a magnificent job of distilling this enormous topic down to an approachable form that pastors, theologians or laymen alike can come away with a more than sufficient understanding that contributes to their thinking and worship.

Each of the eight chapters is concise but packed with the necessary scriptural references for the reader to construct a biblical understanding of the mission. Schell leans heavily on the Old Testament as understanding the events of creation, the Garden and the Fall, and the calling of Israel form the background to understand the blessing of the incarnation and the cross and the assignment of the Church. This background is often missing from the thinking of many in the Church who form their understanding by starting at the Christmas narrative.

One of the finest features of this book is its size. I have numerous volumes of several hundred to over a thousand pages that require immense dedication to engage. By the time I have finished these books, the point or topic can be lost in the countless details and arguments. This series by Crossway contributes immensely to the craft of theology by concisely presenting the enormous things of God in a form approachable by any reader at nearly any level.

A Healthy Base for Planting Churches

Nurturing Roots to Fruit

If the Church wants to plant more churches in more places, we must launch them from a solid foundation. If your denomination, conference, affiliation or even your local church wants to see the reach of Christ’s church expand the kingdom gospel near and far, our commitment to church planting must balance that with an equally keen resolve to the nurture and maintenance of our existing bodies. We must nurture our legacy congregation at the same time we send out planters of new ones. Without the firm foundation of existing churches, planters without support, material and spiritual.

The Church is organic. We are the body of Christ spread across the globe and yet inseparably interconnected. Health in the body should be measured holistically, believing that all churches matter: fresh growth and existing parts equally. No leaves or fruit survive without the stem and roots. Like our own bodies, pain or weakness in one part is detrimental to the unhindered working of the other parts. It’s distracting at best, debilitating at worst. Sore legs cannot provide the stability and mobility needed by the rest of our body as we try to be of service in the kingdom. It can still happen, but it will require significantly more effort and may not be as effective.

While I support para-church planting efforts, I believe the most natural and effective church planting is done from within the church, done by churches who plant other churches. The men and women sent to plant are then known by the church, loved by the church, and supported by the church. When they are sent, they go with a support system in place and a time-tested culture adaptable to a new gathering of people. In order to realize this culture of planting, the existing churches need the confidence that comes from being healthy themselves.

To realize this mindset requires a cultural awareness on two fronts. The church must maintain as a life goal to reproduce itself. This begins on the more atomic level of being disciples who produce other disciples. Without this attitude, the larger goal of reproducing the church will be impossible in the eyes of the congregation.  Keeping reproduction in the front of the other ministry goals, the church has an easier time of recognizing the need for health in all aspects of the life of the church. A public aim of reproduction heightens the awareness of a need for maintaining the church’s health in all areas to be prepared when the time comes to birth a new congregation.

Decline in churches occurs for a variety of reasons, but one of the most common is the loss of a frontier, a horizon toward which the body is always on the move. This is easily diagnosed by looking at the macro level; does the church have a group of saints who have ceased to grow? Are they not producing new disciples on their own? These truths point to the starting point on the path to health and, hopefully, a new vigorous pursuit of kingdom goals. This is a challenging ministry, but with the end goal of reproducing in mind, fresh motivation can kick-start a return to health.

Healthy roots support an abundance of fruit.