Tag Archives: me we principle

The MeWe Principle Updated

I drew these sketches and wrote these words in August, 2012:
MeWe Trinity Image

MeWe Priniciple Notes

There is no I in this picture. The subject is not in the singular. God is inherently WE in God’s Trinitarian essence. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit collectively form the subject WE. God said, “We create humanity in our image, male and female we create them.”

The individual self is not the subject at all, but always in the accusative or dative form ME. We–the collective me’s, that is–have our being because we receive it from another. God creates me. You, fellow human, know me, love me, hate me, help me, hurt me. In the reception of the action the me is formed, for good or for evil.

The great illusion is that I am the subject. Yes there is a part that I play in this picture. I am one of the many me’s, and you cannot receive my love without me functioning as an I. However, I cannot function as an I without first having been the me that received life and love from God and from primary humans around me.

Sin, idolatry, separation, and destruction begins when I believe that I am without any prior me-ness, or that I am not worthy of receiving your love. The autonomous, individual I that acts upon the objective world is a deception that has led to a great amount of suffering, and the dejected withdrawn I is a darkness that infects us all.

I am only me because of the ultimate and sustaining We that loves me and calls me to love others.

The telos–end goal, aim, objective, purpose–of this picture is love. God loves all creation and longs to draw all creation into reciprocal love in which individual me‘s all realize our interdependence and ultimate source and learn to live in the way of God’s communicative reality. This is what we often call the Kingdom of God…on earth as it is in Heaven. ((from my noteshelf app on the iPad, August 12, 2012))

It is almost two years later and, looking back on this statement, I realize two things:

  1. I still agree with it. That is a good sign that this thought has been a connective tissue throughout my PhD process. I need to listen to that and should probably incorporate it at some level in my dissertation.
  2. I now have good research to give warrant to this statement. Below is a rough sketch of warrants for my argument.

The Holy Spirit, Twitter, and Practical Wisdom

practicalwisdom_schwartzI believe the Holy Spirit moves through Twitter. I know that sounds weird, but the story I am about to tell is one that has happened often to me.

Yesterday I started writing an essay about dualisms and how we can navigate between seemingly polarized opposites. I’ll post it when it is finished. This morning I opened up Twitter and the first tweet I saw was from Brain Pickings and was a link to Maria’s review of Practical Wisdom by Barry Schwartz and Kenneth Sharpe. Maria is a great writer and her review of this book, and the quotes that she highlighted, were a great help to my essay and to my research in general.

I look forward to reading this book in the future. For now, let me highlight some of Maria’s highlights.

The book is built upon Aristotle’s reflections on wisdom and his belief that wisdom is not built from rules, but from telos. The Greek word telos literally means end or goal. For Aristotle, it meant knowing the bigger picture and purpose for why we do certain things. For example, a physician’s telos is to heal people. A musician’s telos is to play music. Each of these disciplines–medicine and music–have certain rules and guidelines that frame the practice, but the telos of the practice is not to rigidly follow the rules. The telos is to heal people and play music, and sometimes that requires improvisation. The wise person knows when to bend, or even break, the rules in order to achieve the telos of the practice. Many people in our culture slavishly follow the letter of the law in the name of wisdom, but, according to Schwartz, are actually unwise and often hurtful to themselves and society.

I believe this is what the Apostle Paul meant when he discussed the Law and the purpose of the Law in his letters, specifically in his letter to the Galatians. He was, of course, following Jesus’ lead in his reframing of the Law in Matthew 5-7. The telos of Law is life, not blind rigid obedience.

Schwartz describes how we are hardwired to become wise as we grow throughout our lives. Maria summarizes the argument, “We exercise our capacity for wisdom in three key ways: natural categorization (our predisposition to organize the world into categories of things, arranged in nuanced ways); framing (finding a context of comparison for things we are evaluating); and storytelling (constructing sense-making narratives about our lives and our experiences). One particularly interesting feature of our predilection for categories is the notion of “fuzziness” — the idea that the categories in which we classify the world are more often based on a nuanced spectrum than a binary dichotomy.

This is where I got really excited because the very thing about which I was writing yesterday was the navigation of these binary dichotomies. Additionally, I decided, within the past week, to frame my dissertation around a narrative structure under the premise that we are storytelling creatures who make sense out of our stories and how we frame them.

The fact that Twitter led me to this post, today, seems to be one of those affirmations from God, and the movement of the Holy Spirit, that I am on a good path. (At least that is the story I’m telling myself as I frame it in this moment 😉 )

Here are some quotes that Maria highlighted that I feel are worth requoting here:

“Schwartz and Sharpe go on to outline the six core qualities of the person endowed with telos:

  1. A wise person knows the proper aims of the activity she is engaged in. She wants to do the right thing to achieve these aims—wants to meet the needs of the people she is serving.
  2. A wise person knows how to improvise, balancing conflicting aims and interpreting rules and principles in light of the particularities of each context.
  3. A wise person is perceptive, knows how to read a social context, and knows how to move beyond the black-and-white of rules and see the gray in a situation.
  4. A wise person knows how to take on the perspective of another—to see the situation as the other person does and thus to understand how the other person feels. This perspective-taking is what enables a wise person to feel empathy for others and to make decisions that serve the client’s (student’s, patient’s, friend’s) needs.
  5. A wise person knows how to make emotion an ally of reason, to rely on emotion to signal what a situation calls for, and to inform judgment without distorting it. He can feel, intuit, or “just know” what the right thing to do is, enabling him to act quickly when timing matters. His emotions and intuitions are well educated.
  6. A wise person is an experienced person. Practical wisdom is a craft and craftsmen are trained by having the right experiences. People learn how to be brave, said Aristotle, by doing brave things. So, too, with honesty, justice, loyalty, caring, listening, and counseling.”


“Frame” is a wonderful metaphor because it emphasizes our capacity to take the chaos of the social world around us and organize it in an understandable way. In framing the scene, we are setting the picture off from its surroundings, excluding what is on the outside and defining what is inside as special and worthy of attention. Frames tell us what is important and help us establish what should be compared with what. The capacity we have to frame enables us to do one of the most important things that practical wisdom demands — discern what is relevant about a particular context or event in regard to the decision we face. Learning to frame well helps make us wise.
“Framing” has gotten a bad name. In a marketing context, it is characterized as an effort to manipulate us into buying things we don’t need. In a political context, it is labeled as “spin” and characterized as an effort to slant or distort the truth in the direction of our favored position. And evidence that we depend on the frame, or context of comparison, for making judgments is sometimes regarded as a defect of human reason. We should be able to see and evaluate things as they “really” are, unbiased by the way they are packaged. But in fact, it is our capacity to frame that enables all our judgments, and it is nearly impossible to make judgments that do not depend on frames… It is only our capacity to do this automatic framing that enables us to make sensible judgments at all.
Framing is pervasive, inevitable, and often automatic. There is no “neutral,” frame-free way to evaluate anything.

compare the above quote to my article on frames.

A wise person knows when and how to make the exception to every rule… A wise person knows how to improvise… Real-world problems are often ambiguous and ill-defined and the context is always changing. A wise person is like a jazz musician — using the notes on the page, but dancing around them, inventing combinations that are appropriate for the situation and the people at hand. A wise person knows how to use these moral skills in the service of the right aims. To serve other people, not to manipulate other people. And finally, perhaps most important, a wise person is made, not born. Wisdom depends on experience, and not just any experience. You need the time to get to know the people that you’re serving. You need permission to be allowed to improvise, try new things, occasionally to fail and to learn from your failures. And you need to be mentored by wise teachers.

Let me frame this in the narrative of my research. A wise person is one who is participating in the life of the Trinity, involved in a dynamic relationship with God in ever-deepening layers of discernment, aware and in tune with both the Word of God in scripture and also the Word of God in the World, following the prompting of the Holy Spirit to know what is best in each particular moment for the good of the other and the best interest for all.

A wise person is improvising in the Trinity’s Jazz band, yes?

Thank you Spirit, for using Twitter to lead me to this reflection today. Thanks for listening.

Book | A Sociology of Spirituality edited by Flanagan and Jupp

imageFlanagan, Kieran & Jupp, Peter C. A Sociology of Spirituality. Aldershot, England; Burlington, VT: Ashgate. 2007.

The Editors — Kieran Flanagan and Peter Jupp

from the book jacket:

“The emergence of spirituality in contemporary culture in holistic forms suggests that organised religions have failed. This thesis is explored and disputed in this book in ways that mark important critical divisions. This is the first collection of essays to assess the significance of spirituality in the sociology of religion.”

My Thoughts

This collection of essays explores how and if spirituality, and the emerging prevalence of spirituality that is detached from organized religion, can be studied in the field of sociology. This is an interesting question since much of the impetus behind the formation of sociology as an academic discipline was to dislodge the study of human social/political movement from the dominance of theology and the apparent bankruptcy and Medieval moorings that came with it. This dislodging was considered to be a harbinger of the eventual total collapse of organized religion in the West. Now that more people in Western/Modern culture are expressing themselves as either (a) spiritual but not religious, or (b) finding a deeper spirituality within their organized religion, the challenge is presented to discipline of sociology to figure out how to empirically examine this phenomenon.

This book does not answer the question. The editors admit that “the collection has generated far more questions than it answers. A vista worthy of sociological exploration has been opened out and in the study of spirituality new issues, new interpretations and new characterisations of culture and religion emerge.” (260)

I found three essays particularly interesting and helpful for my research.

“Spirituality: Some Disciplinary Perspectives” by Peter C. Holmes.

He explores how spirituality has become an important part of several academic disciplines: psychology, medicine and healthcare, religion, anthropology, education, and the business world. Ironically, sociology is the slowest discipline to take up the task of studying spirituality.

Holmes asks preliminary questions before discussing the particularities of each discipline. He says,

“we must decide whether we believe in the existence of spirituality, and if we do then the academic question is whether it is possible to study it at all. Many have traditionally seen spirituality as a mystery. If we do see spirituality this way, then we have a choice. Either we acknowledge we cannot study it directly because of its intangibility. Alternately, we accept the study of spirituality at a corporeal level, but only through its outcomes and symptoms. In accepting this latter option we are also acknowledging that current academic tools are unable to study the incorporeal essence of spirituality.” (23)

Holmes also provides a provisional definition of spirituality. Spirituality is “the human search for meaning, particularly relationally, and that for many today this incorporates a supernatural/corporeal dimension that suggests many of us have discovered we are more than our physical biology.” (24-25)

“Georg Simmel: Religion and Spirituality” by Ivan Varga.

This essay explores the sociology of a somewhat neglected pioneer in the field: Georg Simmel. Varga begins the essay with an observation and question:

“Why does spirituality occupy an increasingly important place in people’s lives, whether they belong or not to a church? In my view, this is mainly because in modernity or postmodernity the individual is increasingly de-rooted, that is, deprived of the traditional cultural significants; the individual is–to paraphrase Sartre–‘thrown into choice’, and collective memory is becoming ever more fragmented. In order better to understand these developments, in particular the development of new forms of spirituality, Simmel’s ideas on the distinction between religion and religiosity are of paramount importance. His views on the role religion plays in society and in the life of the individual were shaped by his social theory.” (146)

Varga proceeds to offer a concise overview of Simmel’s social theory. I found this interesting because I think it relates to relational ontology, the both/and of individual and group, and the development of my own MeWe Principle. Varga states,

“In Simmel’s view there is a tension between the individual and the social. Sociation (Vergesellschaftung) is the process through which an individual becomes a member of society. In this process the individual recognises the other and through the other his or her self. Sociation as a process includes individuation. But it also involves a tension between association and dissociation whereby the individual, who belongs to a group or to several groups, asserts his or her individuality thus counteracting the tendency towards homogenisation. Simmel admits that there are a few exceptions to this process, such as monks in a monastery. For him, society was neither an entity in itself nor a sum total of individuals. Rather, he viewed it as specific interactions of individuals who create the forms in which they constitute the groups that make up society. Thus society is a dynamic process involving individuals in their interactions within and amongst groups.” (147)

Simmel distinguishes between religion and religiosity. Varga picks up on this distinction and names it as a possible reason for the recent growth in spirituality and its detachment from organized religion. Simmel says, “Life wishes to express itself directly as religion, not through a language with a lexicon and prescribed syntax. One could use an apparently paradoxical expression and say: The soul can find faith only by losing it. To preserve the integrity of religious feeling, it must shake off all determined and predetermined religious forms (Simmel 1968b (1918): 24).” (155)

Varga concludes,

“Simmel anticipates not only the changes in the dynamic of religion but also of the human condition in postmodernity. The spirit or ‘soul’ of modern culture, with its open-endedness and at the same time restrictive nature, places a burden on the individual who must navigate between the Scylla of rapid technological and social changes and the Charybdis of finding a meaning of life amongst the competing worldviews. Simmels’ emphasis on spirituality and quest of an overarching meaning also explains the stubbornness of religiosity in a world that is secularised in its institutions.

“The Zeitgeist of the postmodern culture fosters the individual’s striving for ‘self-realisation’, but it is discordant with the constraints created by the irreconcilable conflict of objective and subjective culture. Simmel, however, acknowledges that this polarity is an essential element of the progress of culture. His analysis of the possibilities of the individual’s potential within the asymmetry of the objective and subjective culture helps us to understand the role of spirituality and its relation to church-oriented religion.” (158)

“The Embodied Spirituality of the Post-Boomer Generations” by Richard Flory and Donald E. Miller.

These authors interviewed over 100 members of congregations that represented two types of Generation Xers who were finding their spirituality within an organized religious expression. The first kind they labeled “reclaimers” because they have abandoned the symbol-less religion of much the mega-church evangelicalism and are finding deep spiritual meaning in the older, traditional, liturgal spaces and practices. The second group they labeled “Innovators” because they are creating their own forms of liturgical practices within organized communities.

Both groups hold certain things in common. First, they betray the predictions of Bellah, et alia, that the spirituality of this generation is individual and nomadic. These post-boomers are finding their spirituality as a journey, yes, but a journal embodied in community. Secondly, this community is not limited to the introspection and individualization of other forms of spirituality. Flory and Miller call their spirituality an “Expressive Communalism.” The individual finds oneself in community, but the purpose of the community is for the good of the larger, “other”, community through acts of social justice and communal participation.

I found this interesting because I believe this is a good picture of what a missional community could, and possibly should, look like. Spirituality is the purpose of the church as it expresses the imago Dei of relationality. This relationality is the missio Dei as the particular individuals are formed in the Expressive Communalism of the journeying community.



Catching the Wind: A Theological Theory of Strategic Action

A Term Paper Presented to Dr. Craig Van Gelder

Luther Seminary

As a Requirement in Course LD8910 The Hermeneutics of Leading in Mission

St. Paul, Minnesota



Theory of Strategic ActionThis essay presents my theory of strategic action. It explores how to lead a missional congregation through the process of decision-making and taking action in the world. I will communicate my theory by using the metaphor of a sailing vessel. ((I first encountered this metaphor when reading Leonard Sweet’s book Aqua Church in 2000.[Leonard I. Sweet, Aquachurch (Loveland, CO: Group Pub., 1999).] I use his basic metaphor, but I have modified it for my own purposes.)) The church is a sailing vessel that has been called to take a journey of exploration with God into this wonderful and turbulent world of postmodernity.

Questions for the Journey

A traveler preparing for a journey must ask three questions: 1) Where am I? 2) Where am I going? 3) How will I get there? My theory of strategic action is built around these three basic questions. The missional church must ask these questions in regard to the journey that God has for it. The basic structure is this. We must first ask where we are. What is our story, style, and culture that places us in a specific location? We then ask where we are going? This second question has two facets. The first is to ask what God is doing in our context. Second, we must discern what God is asking us to do and where God is asking us to go. Finally, we ask the question how will we get there? This question also has two interrelated parts. The first part requires strategic planning and organizing for the journey. The second part requires experimentation and constant revision.

Setting Sail: The Metaphor of a Sailing Vessel

The purpose of a sailing ship is to go places. That is an important point for the church. We are not fixed in one location. God calls the church and sends the church on a journey. It is a journey of spiritual formation and of global renewal. The hull of the ship represents the distinctiveness of the local congregation. The sails of the ship are the ministries and mechanisms that the church has constructed in order to do the work God has called it to do. The ocean is the postmodern world of discontinuous change. Jesus is the North Star, standing as the one fixed point by which we locate ourselves in the ever-changing universe. The Holy Spirit is the wind that propels the ship.

The Holy Spirit is the power. This is an important point. The church does not propel itself. The Holy Spirit drives the boat. The job of the church is to align itself properly with the power of the wind so that the ship will sail and not capsize.

The Illustration

I have also provided an illustration to help explain this theory at a glance. Refer to figure 1. It all begins with God’s Story that is constantly flowing all around us. The self is located within the context of human relationships. The self is informed by the story it tells itself, the stories of the world, and the Biblical narrative (assuming the self is of the Christian persuasion). All of these factors come together to help the self make a choice to take action. The action has consequences which alter the environment, thus causing a feedback loop that alters the story the self tells itself and placing the self in a new location. The process begins again.

A Theory of Strategic Action Illustration
fig. 1


The First Question: Where (am i) Are We?

Why start here? Why not start with the destination question? Isn’t that the point of a journey; to get somewhere? The destination is definitely important, but the postmodern self cannot start with the question of an objective destination that is out there. The process must begin with self, because that is all we really know. ((Immanuel Kant is the one who got us started on the discussion of starting points. His critique of pure reason drove the wedge between the noumena and phenomena. Kant questioned whether it was possible to truly know the object. The only connection the subject has with the object is the secondary sensory perceptions located in the perception of the object by the subject. Many scholars tried to bridge the Kantian divide between subject and object. Schleiermacher, Dilthey, Heideggar, Gadamer—they all had variations on the theme, but agreed that the starting place of knowing the object, is in the subject. Jean Grondin discusses this 19th and 20th century hermeneutical lineage from Kant to Gadamer. [Jean Grondin, Introduction to Philosophical Hermeneutics, Yale Studies in Hermeneutics (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994).]))

Jumping on the Merry-Go-Round

Let me use a simple metaphor to illustrate this point. How do you jump onto a spinning merry-go-round? You approach the spinning platform and realize two things. First, it is a continuous blur and you cannot decipher a single place on which to jump. Second, you, and the world around you, are calm and stationary. How do you move from being a stationary observer to being a fully engaged rider? The process begins with you. You must start running along side the platform. The faster you run, the slower the ride seems to move and the clearer the handle and platform appears. There comes a critical moment when you are moving fast enough and the platform seems slow enough that you can make the leap and you jump onto the merry-go-round. A significant event happens in that moment. Everything shifts. You suddenly become stationary once again. This time, however, it is the merry-go-round that is calm and stationary while the world around you spins into a blur of motion. The more you know about yourself and where you are situated, the more able you will be to position yourself relative to the object and make a connection to it. You must make the first move.

Confessing Horizons

This is my theory of action, therefore it is limited to my particular horizon and location at this moment in my life. ((The language of horizons and the fusion of horizons comes from Hans-Georg Gadamer. A horizon is created by one’s position in the world. It is limited to one’s own ability to perceive the world and articulate that perception through language. Every person and every work of human creation—art, literature, culture—has a horizon and is limited in its finitude. It is only when the individual acknowledges her horizon and engages the horizon of another person, or work of art, through the fusion of open dialogue that she can begin to grow her horizon and understand more about the world. Gadamer explains these concepts thoroughly in his magnum opus Truth and Method. [Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method (London: Sheed & Ward, 1975).])) If I want to present a theory of action that helps the church answer the three journey questions, then I must first ask them of myself. Where am I?

I am a white, middle-class, suburban, male. I was raised in a conservative, fundamentalist, Baptist culture in my youth. I served in a seeker-targeted, evangelical, mega-church in Las Vegas during my twenties and early thirties. I received a Masters of Divinity from Bethel Seminary during that time and began to migrate to an emergent and missional theology. I disengaged from the mega church and experimented with house church from 2002-2007. My theology became progressively more eclectic and missional during that time. God called me to move to the northern suburbs of Minneapolis in 2007. In 2009 I met the pastor of an ELCA (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America) congregation who welcomed me into the Lutheran church. I am currently in the process of transferring my ordination to the ELCA. I am a husband, father, artist, writer, musician, pastor, teacher, and PhD student.

I believe in the reality of the Triune God. I believe that God became flesh in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, whose death and resurrection have reconciled humanity with God and whose coming kingdom is both a present and unfolding reality. I believe that the Holy Spirit is active in the world and is our source of power and insight in daily life. I privilege the Hebrew and Christian canon as normative for the church in that the scriptures record the historical, dynamic relationship of God with the people identified within the particular election of Abraham and his descendents.

All of these things locate me in a very specific place—geographically, culturally, and theologically—with a very specific perspective on the world. These prejudices have a strong impact on my theory. While I would like to think that it is a brilliant and universal theory, it is not. It is my theory and I pray it will be appropriate for the people that God has called me to lead.

The Me/We Principle.

The local congregation is a conglomeration of individual selves who are connected in a collective self. Each individual has his or her own horizon and must ask the where am I question. These individuals must start with a me perspective. The collective of mes becomes a we. The we becomes another form of me as it stands in relation to the larger world around it and must also ask the where am I/where are we question.

I call this the MeWe principle. There is an important truth embedded in this principle that ripples throughout my theory of action: it is only when the me reaches out and engages the other that the me truly discovers itself. There is no me without we. ((Paul Ricouer explores this concept deeply. Paul Ricœur, Oneself as Another (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992), 17.)) The biblical image for this is the body of Christ. Each individual me is a part of the body, and all the parts work together interdependently to form the collective we of the body. ((1 Corinthians 12:1-31))

The rest of this presentation will operate under the assumption of a double-layered application. I will sometimes use language that addresses the collective we, while other times I will address the individual me. Each of the following principles can and should be utilized by the me and we simultaneously.

Know Your Story

We all tell ourselves a story. Most of the story we tell ourselves is a story that was written for us without our consent. I did not ask to be born. I did not ask for my parents or the genetic material they combined to create me. My parents chose where I would grow up, what language I would speak, the people I would know, and the church I would attend. All the early experiences I had that imprinted on my young mind were done to me, without my consent.

Some of our story is written by our own choices. Granted, the choices we have are still limited to the language we know, the place we live, and the physical resources at our disposal, but we can start to have some say in the matter and contribute to our own story.

If a local church desires to form a strategic action plan, it is important for it to become aware of its own story. Your story locates you in time and space and helps you understand the perspective from which you perceive the rest of the world. If you are financially well off, for example, and occupy a place of privilege in society then you will perceive the world and the scripture very different from one who was born on the margins of society and had to struggle for basic physical resources.

Know Your Style.

Another factor that contributes to the location of the MeWe is that of style. Style refers to the unique personality traits, skills, and spiritual gifts that each individual has. Personality factors impact the way a person learns, expresses himself, and contributes to the larger we. The issue of style is not limited to the individual person. The Local congregation has a style as well. Some congregations are warm and welcoming, some are serious and studious, some are wild in worship, some are contemplative and serene. Each style is a unique part of the body, and the better one knows one’s own style, the better equipped one will be to engage in the community as a positive, contributing member. ((The Myers-Briggs Personality Type Indicator is an excellent tool to help a congregation discover its style. David Keirsey treats this subject well in David Keirsey, Please Understand Me Ii: Temperament, Character, Intelligence, 1st ed. (Del Mar, CA: Prometheus Nemesis, 1998). Another excellent tool is the Enneagram. Don Richard Riso and Russ Hudson, The Wisdom of the Enneagram: The Complete Guide to Psychological and Spiritual Growth for the Nine Personality Types (New York: Bantam Books, 1999).))

Know Your Surroundings

The missional church must be aware of where it is physically located. A church’s physical location is comprised of geography, demographics, cultural mores, and political powers. The church that does not adapt to its surroundings will suffer. Two simple examples will illustrate this point. If you are out in the middle of a snow storm, you will want to put on warm clothes. This is a strategic action directly proportionate to the physical surroundings. If you were out in the desert you would most likely not wear the same clothes that you would in the snow. The sailing vessel that is not aware that there is a shallow reef ahead is in store for a shock. These illustrations seem obvious, but it is surprising how many local congregations lose touch with their immediate physical surroundings and dress inappropriately or crash on the rocks.

Who Are Your Neighbors?

The most important surrounding that an individual and a church must acknowledge is that of the neighbor. Jesus taught that the second great commandment is to love your neighbor as yourself. ((Luke 10:25-37)) When asked who is my neighbor, Jesus essentially replied…everybody.

There are three basic kinds of neighbors: the intimate neighbor, the comfortable neighbor, and the uncomfortable neighbor. The process of loving each kind of neighbor is different. We will discuss the difference between these three rings of neighbors now, and this differentiation will come into play in a few more places along the way.

Intimate Neighbors

The intimate neighbor is the soul-mate, the friend, the confidant. This is a small circle, but a crucial one. It is in these relationships that we truly experience love and intimacy that feeds the soul and provides strength, comfort, and encouragement. It is the goal of the church to be the place in which each person can find the intimate neighbor to love.

Comfortable Neighbors

The comfortable neighbor is the person who is like you and does not make you feel threatened. The church should be a place of intimate and comfortable neighbors. The comfortable neighbor is not limited to the confines of the church, however. This neighbor is the person in the community that is like you. They blend into the background. Most often the comfortable neighbors flock together in homogenous groups and strive to stay comfortable within their safe boundaries.

Uncomfortable Neighbors

Loving the intimate and comfortable neighbor is relatively easy. They generally love you back. It is when we come to the uncomfortable neighbor that things get scary (and the gospel may be lurking). The love of Jesus is found when we reach across the boundary that divides the comfortable from the uncomfortable. This is what Jesus meant when he said, “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” ((Matthew 5:43-48))

The missional church must be in tune with the neighborhood. Who are the people that would naturally be uncomfortable to us? Those are the people we need to notice. We need to learn who they are and how their stories shape the larger community in which our congregation’s story finds itself.

What Are the Rules?

There is more going on in our surroundings than just physical space and people. There is the culture which is comprised of the rules—both explicit and implicit—that govern our behavior and interactions.

Cultural Values

Some cultures have overt rules that prohibit the interaction of certain people or dramatically restrict certain behavior in certain people groups. Other cultures have unwritten rules that are often stronger than the explicit rules. We don’t play with those kinds of kids. There goes the neighborhood. You can’t trust them. Important people drive this type of care, have their children in this type of activity, and would never think of doing that.

Spiritual Powers

There is more going on in the surroundings than just culture. Culture is a component and a symptom of something different. Sin is at play in our societies. People are broken and trapped within self. The isolation of self leads people to fear. Fear leads to self-protection and mistrust. Self-protection and mistrust leads to war and violence. War and violence leads to famine and disease. War, famine, and disease lead to destruction and death. Violence also leads to fear, which starts the cycle again. When fear rules people’s hearts, the collective will of the people becomes a spiritual force that takes on a life of its own. The apostle Paul referred to these forces as the principalities, powers, rulers, and authorities. The church is called to stand against these forces of evil through prayer and the love of Christ. We are called to unmask the powers of evil and demonstrate that Jesus has won the victory over them. It is only when the church acknowledges these powers that they can take the action to stand against them. ((Ephesians 6:10-20))

Know Your Shortcomings

We end this first section where we started. We must acknowledge the fact that we are limited in our horizons. We are finite creatures, bound to make mistakes. This acknowledgment will keep us humble and able to be attentive to the other.

Shackled by Sin

The discussion of spiritual powers can tempt us to view the church as a bastion of holiness surrounded by a maelstrom of evil that is out there. We must always remember that sin is a constant companion within each follower of Jesus. Martin Luther left the legacy simul iustus et peccator—that we are each simultaneously both sinner and saint. It is only by God’s grace that we can do anything. This acknowledgement should keep any notion of self-righteousness and pride in check and allow us to reach out to the other in authentic openness.

Bound by Horizons

Finally, we must always remember that we are bound by our own horizon; our own perspective relative to where we stand in the world. The uncomfortable neighbor is only uncomfortable because their horizon is beyond mine. I can’t see it, so I fear it. When we approach the uncomfortable neighbor with the attitude to engage their horizon in dialogue, then we can move to the fusion of horizons and perhaps, together, gain better understanding. ((Gadamer, 269.))

The Second Question: Where Are We Going?

We have located our self, at least provisionally. Now it is time to ask the second question. Where are we going? This question is better stated where is God asking us to go? The discovery of God’s calling requires two things. First, we must learn to open our eyes and look around to see what God is currently doing in the world around us. Second, we must learn to open our ears and listen to what God is asking us to do. ((Craig Van Gelder articulates these questions well in his theory of action. Craig Van Gelder, “The Hermeneutics of Leading in Mission,” Journal of Religious Leadership 3, no. 1-2 (2004).))

What is God Doing?

Looking at God with Fresh Eyes

The missional church needs to look at God with fresh eyes. The theological story that the western church has told itself for the past 1500 years is one of a monarchial God who works through the top-down power structure of the church. God’s presence and means of Grace has been confined within the church and under the power of the clergy. This God-in-the-box mentality has tended to centralize the church in culture and communicated to the world that people must come into the church to find God.

The western church has lost its position in society. This is actually a good thing for the church. This disruption of our story is forcing the current generation to look at scripture, the world, and God with fresh eyes. The missional church needs to have a missional theology. The basic tenets of this theology are as follows:

God is a creative trinity. God is a community of three persons, eternally loving one another. The scripture names these three persons with two masculine and one neuter title: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. ((It is important to note that God is not male or female. The masculine language of scripture stems from scripture’s cultural horizon. We need to be sensitive to this type of language in our world where the feminist movement has shed great light on gender abuse through the ages.)) This eternal community of love has created, is recreating, and will eternally recreate the universe for the purpose of bringing all creation into loving community with Godself. ((Ted Peters, God–the World’s Future : Systematic Theology for a New Era, 2nd ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000).))

Jesus is the redeeming and reconciling King. Humanity has been disrupted by sin. The effect of sin is isolation, fear, violence, and death. The second person of the Trinity became flesh in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. He took on the pain of sin and death and conquered it through the shame of crucifixion. He rose from the dead and conquered death. He has been exalted as the King of Kings and his reign is over the entire universe. He seeks to bring the shalom—the peace—of God to all nations through his loving reign. His kingdom is a proleptic reality. It is already, but not yet. ((Hans Küng, The Church (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1968), 47-53.))

The Spirit is at Work. The Holy Spirit is the active agent of the Trinity in the world today. The pluriform and polycentric spirit is present and active within all nations, working to draw them into the diverse unity of the Kingdom of God. ((For a complex and robust discussion of the pluriform and polycentric Spirit, see Michael Welker, God the Spirit, 1st English-language ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994).))

Looking at the Church with Fresh Eyes

I mentioned earlier that the church has changed. It has lost its privileged position in western society and has been marginalized to the ranks of volunteer organization or vendor of religious commodity for those still interested in the medieval model of church life. It is time to re-imagine what the church is and what God is doing in and around it.

The Church is Called and Sent to Partner with God. God has specifically called the followers of Jesus to be God’s covenant people, in the same way that he called Abraham’s people. ((Lesslie Newbigin presents a compelling argument for the purpose of election. Communication must be particular. Humans communicate through language and cultural symbology. Culture is specific, not universal. Therefore, if God was going to communicate with humanity, it had to be done through a particular language, which is de facto bound by a particular culture. Jesus had to be confined to a human being, bound by language, culture, and history. The church is also bound by language, culture, and history. Lesslie Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans; WCC Publications 1989).)) The church is called out of the world to demonstrate the Kingdom of God’s peace at work in the lives of real people. The gathered people of God are then called to move into society with the good news of peace and reconciliation demonstrated by the healing and forgiveness of Jesus((Van Gelder and Zscheile provide an excellent overview of the sending trinity in Craig Van Gelder and Dwight J. Zscheile, The Missional Church in Perspective : Mapping Trends and Shaping the Conversation, The Missional Network (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2011), 101-123.))

The Church is a Spirit-Empowered and Spirit-Led Body. We have already discussed that the church is a MeWe collective. The Holy Spirit is the bond that connects the individual mes to one another. The Spirit dispenses gifts to the parts of the body so that every person has a contributing part to play in the action to which God calls the body. The Spirit also calls and leads the church into missional space in the world.

The Church is Led by a Plurality of Leaders. Scripture indicates a plurality of leadership for the church. Leadership is necessary for the church to function, but the purpose of leadership not the wielding of authoritative power. The purpose of leadership is “to equip the saints for the work of the ministry.” ((Ephesians 4:12))

Looking at the World with Fresh Eyes

The church must no longer look at the world as them and the church as us. The Holy Spirit is at work in all people drawing all people into the healing and reconciliation of Jesus’ kingdom of peace. The Missional church must learn to look at the uncomfortable neighbor across the street and ask what God is doing in their midst and what can we learn from it? When the local church engages its community with this attitude it opens channels for the Holy Spirit to bridge the gap and draw different cultures into constructive dialogue. This fusion of horizons can make new spaces in which the Holy Spirit can move among the people. This is not to say that the church must relativize its belief for the sake of a new homogeneity. Rather, this allows the church to connect to the larger community in a heterogeneous unified diversity in which the Spirit can demonstrate shalom in ways that the world has seldom witnessed. ((This is an image of what the Spirit did on the day of Pentecost in the book of Acts. Many people groups gathered and simultaneously experienced the presence of God within their own diverse languages. This is a further aspect of the Holy Spirit that is developed in Welker.))

Where is God Calling Us?

Listen to God in the Scriptures

We have seen with fresh eyes who God is and what God is doing. Now it is time to listen with fresh ears. This is also called discernment. If the church is going to know where God is calling it, then it has to learn how to listen for God’s voice and recognize it when it is heard. God usually speaks in whispers. ((We see a prototypical example of this in 1 Kings 19:11-13.)) Listening for God’s still small voice is a difficult task in a world inundated with noise and frenetic activity. The missional church needs to rediscover the classic spiritual practices that help us settle our mind, spirit, and body and allow us to listen to God’s voice. A key component to the church’s listening process is to engage in the spiritual practices in community and learn to dwell in the scriptures together. ((Both Alan Roxburgh [Alan J. Roxburgh, Fred Romanuk, and Leadership Network (Dallas Tex.), The Missional Leader : Equipping Your Church to Reach a Changing World, 1st ed. (San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2006), 85-91.] and Patrick Keifert [Patrick R. Keifert, We Are Here Now : A New Missional Era, a Missional Journey of Spiritual Discovery (Eagle, Idaho: Allelon Publishing, 2006), 68-71.] utilize an exercise of dwelling in the Word to help congregations listen and discern God’s voice.))

Listen to God in the Neighbor

Not only does the church need to listen to the scripture to see what God is doing, we must also learn how to listen to our neighbors. We discussed earlier how the me is found in the interface with the other. This dynamic is also true for the church. When we take the time to listen to our neighbors to see where they laugh and where they cry, we will begin to see the spaces in which the Spirit wants us to move and how we can join in what God is already doing in those spaces. Sometimes the voice of God is in the mouth of a Syro-phonecian woman, sometimes a beggar, sometimes a king, and sometimes an ass. We need to be ready to hear it wherever it speaks, and then respond.

The Third Question: How Will We Get There?

It is tempting to think of this final question as the practical question, as if the first questions were purely theory and introspection. This is an erroneous distinction. The fact is that all of the questions require action. Finding our location requires action, as was demonstrated in the illustration of the merry-go-round. Looking at God and listening for God’s voice requires action and community involvement. The entire process is praxis. In the doing we discover the going. ((Gerben Heitink discusses this in great detail. The time has come to deconstruct the false dichotomy between theoretical theology and practical theology. When we obey Jesus’ commands and act on them, then we discover the reality of God at work in the world. There is no sequence to how this works. Sometimes it is theology-theory-action, sometimes the other way around. Gerben Heitink, Practical Theology: History, Theory, Action Domains: Manual for Practical Theology, Studies in Practical Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1999).)) Put in simple terms: you can’t steer a parked car, and you can’t navigate a docked ship. We must now look at the question of how.

Get Organized

Organization is not a bad thing, nor is it a good thing. It is simply a necessity. The church does, however, need to be cautious with the role of organization in the life of the organism. We are often tempted to make the organization the thing that we serve, rather than the other way around. It would serve us well to remember this simple axiom. The church is. The church does what it is. The church organizes what it does. ((This is a basic premise of Craig Van Gelder’s work on the missional church. Craig Van Gelder, The Ministry of the Missional Church: A Community Led by the Spirit (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2007).)) We need organization and planning. Current insights from the world of organizational theory can help the church understand that it is an open system that must be in tune to its environment and be able to adapt to constant changes. The leadership and structure of the church must be organized in such a way that it grants power to the maximum number of people who are closest to the areas needing adaptive change. The church is more of a network of social connections than a hierarchy of bureaucratic power. ((Mary Hatch details these various postmodern organizational theories. Mary Jo Hatch and Ann L. Cunliffe, Organization Theory : Modern, Symbolic, and Postmodern Perspectives, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006).))

Make Decisions

The most difficult and most fruitful process the church can experience is that of making decisions. We ultimately have to decide on a specific how. We have to craft the sails for our ship. We have to train the crews, set a direction, and develop a strategic plan. Who makes the decisions? How are the decisions made? In this process we see the best and worst of people and our organizational structures. In this process we see the true flow of power and we unmask the real motives and values that rule our hearts. It is often a painful process that can lead to conflict. Yet, it is through this conflict that we are given the opportunity to work out our differences, extend grace and forgiveness, and find collaborative alternatives that lead to a greater good. This is called communicative action and, when done in the spirit of humility and equality, it can open up great space for the Holy Spirit’s wind to blow powerfully into the sails of the ship. ((Jürgen Habermas is most noted for his work with communicative action (also known as communicative rationality). Gary Simpson gives a good discussion of the application of Habermas’ theories for the missional church. Gary M. Simpson, Critical Social Theory: Prophetic Reason, Civil Society, and Christian Imagination, Guides to Theological Inquiry (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002).))


The missional church needs to have a spirit of playfulness and experimentation. We need to simply try things and see if they work. Jesus called us to follow him, not to sit in a classroom and study him. This is on-the-job training where we make mistakes and learn from them. Perhaps the church should be more like a dojo—where students practice the art of doing the topic—than like a classroom—where students study the theory about a topic. ((The Jesus Dojo is a concept that Mark Scandrette has developed with his ministry—ReImagine—in San Francisco. Mark Scandrette, Practicing the Way of Jesus: Life Together in the Kingdom of Love (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books, 2011).)) When the congregation moves out to experiment in the ways of Jesus’ love in the neighborhood, we will learn from our successes and failures, together.


There is one final step in the process. Repeat. It is necessary to constantly revisit this process because of the feedback loop. In figure 1 we see the process. Everything flows into making us who we are. We are located by the story we tell ourselves. We are situated within the context of geography, people, and culture. We are informed by the scriptures and led by the Holy Spirit. That is our place. We then make a decision and move forward. The choice propels us into a new location. The decision creates consequences—for good or evil—and alters the environment. This altered environment then feeds back into the story we tell ourselves and we are changed. This new location forces us to ask where are we and the process starts over again.


This is my theory. I am here. Now. I will try to lead the people that God has called me to lead through this process. We will experiment. We will change. Hopefully, we will be attentive enough to partner with what God is doing. Six months from now I will be in a new location. I wonder if my theory will look the same then? For now, all I can do is simply experiment and fall forward into the grace of God.


Gadamer, Hans-Georg. Truth and Method. London: Sheed & Ward, 1975.

Grondin, Jean. Introduction to Philosophical Hermeneutics Yale Studies in Hermeneutics. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994.

Hatch, Mary Jo, and Ann L. Cunliffe. Organization Theory : Modern, Symbolic, and Postmodern Perspectives. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.

Heitink, Gerben. Practical Theology: History, Theory, Action Domains: Manual for Practical Theology Studies in Practical Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1999.

Keifert, Patrick R. We Are Here Now : A New Missional Era, a Missional Journey of Spiritual Discovery. Eagle, Idaho: Allelon Publishing, 2006.

Keirsey, David. Please Understand Me Ii: Temperament, Character, Intelligence. 1st ed. Del Mar, CA: Prometheus Nemesis, 1998.

Küng, Hans. The Church. New York: Sheed and Ward, 1968.

Newbigin, Lesslie. The Gospel in a Pluralist Society. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans; WCC Publications 1989.

Peters, Ted. God–the World’s Future : Systematic Theology for a New Era. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000.

Ricœur, Paul. Oneself as Another. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992.

Riso, Don Richard, and Russ Hudson. The Wisdom of the Enneagram: The Complete Guide to Psychological and Spiritual Growth for the Nine Personality Types. New York: Bantam Books, 1999.

Roxburgh, Alan J., Fred Romanuk, and Leadership Network (Dallas Tex.). The Missional Leader : Equipping Your Church to Reach a Changing World. 1st ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 2006.

Scandrette, Mark. Practicing the Way of Jesus: Life Together in the Kingdom of Love. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books, 2011.

Simpson, Gary M. Critical Social Theory: Prophetic Reason, Civil Society, and Christian Imagination Guides to Theological Inquiry. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2002.

Sweet, Leonard I. Aquachurch. Loveland, CO: Group Pub., 1999.

Van Gelder, Craig. “The Hermeneutics of Leading in Mission.” Journal of Religious Leadership 3, no. 1-2 (2004): 139-171.

________________. The Ministry of the Missional Church: A Community Led by the Spirit. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2007.

Van Gelder, Craig, and Dwight J. Zscheile. The Missional Church in Perspective : Mapping Trends and Shaping the Conversation The Missional Network. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Academic, 2011.

Welker, Michael. God the Spirit. 1st English-language ed. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994.