Origins: new missional network
26 Nov 2008
There’s a new missional network emerging, over at theoriginsproject.org. I’m interested and supportive of it for a few reasons.
1. Dan Kimball & Scott McKnight: Two guys I know and have interacted with, and who I respect greatly, and trust immensely are behind this.
I also know and connect with Dan through George Fox, where he is finishing his D.Min and teaches as an adjunct. In january I’m presenting from the two chapters of a book I have written, that Scott has also written for.
2. Focus, Values & Practices: As I’ve talked with Dan and on reading the site, the listed values have resonated with me. A network centred around relationships, a commitment to the bible, evangelism, innovation in mission, and regard for the church.
Now the big question is, what commitments to the bible, and evangelism, mission and church? Those will set the tone and flavour of this group, as it does for all others. From my interactions so far, I love Dan & Scott’s approach to scripture, evangelism, mission and the church.
Far be it from me to delineate what those commitments and values are, and if I could suggest a series of blog posts for Dan, it would be on those areas. What is the networks geography with regards to scripture, evangelism, mission and church? In fact Dan has already been sketching this out on his blog.
And I’m sure that will be forthcoming as the network develops and talks about what it hopes to do and be. And on 1st December you can hear Dan live via teleseminar, talking about The Origins Projects hopes and aspirations.
The first Origins Event is in Germany, Jan 8-9th.
Tagged: ecclesiology, missional church
32 comments
Trackback
Comment by Existential Punk
8.11 am on 26 Nov 2008
On the front page there is a blurb entitled, “A New Community Is Forming”. Something really grabbed me and made me feel really uncomfortable: “. . . As friends, we began talking about the importance of uniting around this mission of sharing Jesus as the hope of the world and our salvation through Him alone…”
i am a Christ-follower for sure, albeit imperfect and messy. i think Christ can reveal himself to people anywhere and within any context. EVEN without people necessarily knowing it is Christ. This may make me very liberal but that is me. This language sounds exclusive and know-it-all to me. We must truly consider our interpretations of the Bible contextually, historically, culturally, et al. Rethink the ‘born again’ passage and Jesus telling us to make disciples. To me that is showing the way of love and service to mankind,
i think the mission of Jesus is to love and to serve. When we get all focused on getting people saved and souls into heaven, we forget the kingdom of God in the here and now. This position sounds so old school to me. Maybe i am too harsh, which is NOT my heart. i am just worried that evangelical fundamentalism will creep in in the disguise of trying to be relevant with ulterior motives.
Ok, enough from my imperfect views and thoughts. Just thinking aloud here.
Warmly,
Adele
Comment by Jason
8.34 am on 26 Nov 2008
I suspect a lot of people are going to see this as ‘old school’, but it’s far from that.
Dan & Scott are two people who have significantly tried to ‘truly consider our interpretations of the Bible contextually, historically, culturally’.
This is not a ‘getting people to pray prayers to get into heaven when you die’. It is about missional church, bringing Jesus to our world, and inviting people to order their worlds together around Jesus, to transform ourselves and our planet as we prepare for an eternity, around the reality of Jesus.
If you track Dan & Scott, their books and blogs, you’ll see their nuances better.
For me, I’m in this for bringing Jesus to others, and believe all of life and creation are centred around him, and want to share that as creatively and passionately as possible, and I think they do too.
Comment by Existential Punk
8.54 am on 26 Nov 2008
Jase,
i get what you are saying and i do know Dan. i guess it’s sort of like what is going on with Obama and his selections for his cabinet, Obama is being criticized by some that he is appointing old school Washington insiders, so where is the change he promised. Yet, others are saying Obama knows what he is doing and will still govern in a different way through the old system. i am not sure if this makes any sense or not.
BUT, they site the Lausanne Covenant, which i have a BIG problem with #2:
2. THE AUTHORITY AND POWER OF THE BIBLE
We affirm the divine inspiration, truthfulness and authority of both Old and New Testament Scriptures in their entirety as the only written word of God, without error in all that it affirms, and the only infallible rule of faith and practice. We also affirm the power of God’s word to accomplish his purpose of salvation. The message of the Bible is addressed to all men and women. For God’s revelation in Christ and in Scripture is unchangeable. Through it the Holy Spirit still speaks today. He illumines the minds of God’s people in every culture to perceive its truth freshly through their own eyes and thus discloses to the whole Church ever more of the many-colored wisdom of God.
i do not view the Bible as infallible. Imperfect humans wrote the books and i believe were inspired by God, as N.T. Wright or Henri Nouwen are/were inspired by God. BUT, i do not believe it is infallible but has truths in it that we can incorporate into our lives. It is the story of God written by imperfect people, written down by imperfect scribes, and translated and interpreted by imperfect people. i do believe God can change His mind. He is not static and bound by a period of time when these books were written.
Ok, not trying to be argumentative here. My prayer is that God blesses this ministry and helps people learn about the love of God and Christ in whatever way God chooses to reveal himself.
Bless you!
Adele
Comment by Jason
8.58 am on 26 Nov 2008
Hi Adele, that’s a good pray to pray for them
I can’t speak to Obama, alas.
With regards to the bible, there a difference between innerancy debates, and belief that the bible is infallible.
Infallible means it’s never failing. Imperfect humans wrote the book, and it was inspired by God, and never fails us due to it’s inspiration.
Comment by Existential Punk
9.05 am on 26 Nov 2008
Thanks Jase!
i just think people too much of the time idolize the Bible rather than worship and follow God.
Thanks for the good conversation!
A.
Comment by Existential Punk
9.37 am on 26 Nov 2008
Jase,
i was just reading this article by Gibbs and Bolger: http://documents.fuller.edu/news/pubs/tnn/2008_Fall/1_morphing.asp
i liked what Ryan Bell, who i met a few years ago at a retreat with Brian McLaren. He was just preparing to move to LA to pastor this church. i think what he says is apropos to this conversation we are having:
“Bell speaks of the church wanting “to have a conversation with its community without imposing its own agenda. . . . This was not a conversation about how we could have a more effective evangelism strategy and grow our church. It was a conversation about ‘being the presence of Christ in our neighborhood.’” They believe that loyalty to their tradition does not require living in the past, but rather learning from the past and reinter-preting their tradition in a very different cultural milieu.”
Pax,
Adele
Comment by matybigfro
7.02 pm on 26 Nov 2008
Although I have appreciated allot of what Dan Kimbal and Scot Mcknight have to say and am excited that this will possibly open up the conversation to new audiences, but I do worry that origins will be come emergent for the mega church
I no it harsh but when you look at the names associated with the start up thats what I see. And I feel there voices we’re much more poignent in a diverse conversation like emergent where there are not only voices of different opinions but also differnet styles and practices.
In one sense it’s like there trying to recreate the leadership network that gave birth to emergent and isn’t that somewhat moving backwards not forwards.
Obviously the problem with holding a diverse conversation like emergent is that we all have our convictions and convictions are exclusive whether there more concervative or more liberal. I hope that what ever happens voices like ol brian McD that generous and gracious in tone can continue to hold this conversation together
Comment by Jason Clark
8.09 am on 29 Nov 2008
Hi maty,
I don’t think this is emergent for the mega church, but even if it was is that wrong?
If we really value diversity, should emergent be able to cover everything? Wouldn’t diversity be more networks, not less, who support each other. What’s wrong with mega churches supporting each other in the area of emerging church? And again I don’t think that this is what this group is about.
Jase
Comment by Charlie Boyd
8.27 pm on 26 Nov 2008
Have any of you guys read a book by John Shore (I’m ok you’re not) -its devastating for ‘Christians’ – gives loads of online quotes by Normies ( non beleievers) why they run away from Christians.These guys smell agendas at 50 paces!I’m afraid the ‘missional’ can also become an agenda (if a somewhat disguised one) that Normies also smell!I think everyone in Emerging should read this book – it is scaring the hell out of me.Shore’s whole point is the Great Commandments especially ‘love thy neighbour as thyself’ takes precedence over the so called Great Commission – which Jesus didn’t actually call the ‘Great Commission’.He also argues that most Americans know the basics of the Gospel and that we should lay off the salesmanship and show more of the love that God pours out on us all!!
Dare you to read the book!!!Dan and Scott included!!
Charlie
Comment by Jason Clark
8.12 am on 29 Nov 2008
Charlie, have you read Dan Kimbal’s book, ‘They like Jesus but not the church’?
I think Dan Kimball is well aware of the issues John Shore raises. Why do you think he wouldn’t be?
Comment by rodney neill
11.43 pm on 26 Nov 2008
Hello Jason,
I read just visited the origins website and must admit my thoughts would echo those of Adele – I would have reservations about many aspects of the Lousanne Covenant which reflects a conservative evangelicalism I have left far behind. However I wish the new network all the best
Rodney
Comment by Jason Clark
8.14 am on 29 Nov 2008
Hi Rodney, I must admit it wouldn’t be my choice for a statement of faith, I’d prefer a listing of the apostle, nicene and athanasian creeds, and the later a working values/practice statement.
But that’s a whole new post I need to make. And like you, any Christians trying to bring Jesus to people to transform their lives and our world, need our encouragement.
Comment by Elizabeth Chapin
1.25 am on 27 Nov 2008
Jason, you say, “I’m interested and supportive of it…” does that mean you will be a part of the network, or just checking it out at this point?
Comment by Jason Clark
8.19 am on 29 Nov 2008
Hi Elizabeth,
At this stage it’s something in the US. But in a global world, the resources and relationships make international involvement possible, I’m sure.
I think Dan & Scott will be very sensitive to appearing colonial, and not want to export a network. But I do think the values they have of being missional, of concrete expressions of missional church, and a re-focusing on evangelism within mission, will resonate with people outside the US, who are within the broader emerging church, like me.
So involvement for me, is that I know Dan, will talk with him, listen and enjoy their resources, where they are helpful and intersect for me, and I’ll share their stuff with others.
Comment by Paul
11.16 am on 27 Nov 2008
lol, I was kinda half expecting to find that this was a post about a new tv series by Josh Wheadon
having seen the name/art work.
Do you think that is this in part some forming/reforming/positioning within the whole emerging converaation?
My gut feel from myself is that folks have a done a lot of storming and now starting to think through concrete forms/expressions of where they have landed.
How do you feel that what we are doing around deep church will fit with this and other networks that will arise?
Comment by Jason Clark
8.26 am on 29 Nov 2008
Hi mate,
I think after the critique of church, which we can know slice and dice, there are many streams that have emerged as responses. I think Tom Sine’s book for instance, ‘the new conspirators’ is one of the best overviews ( the emerging, the missional, the mosaic and the monastic).
So the larger emerging church already has expressions, that are manifest.
And I think as you suggest this is part of the re-forming, and is a healthy part of the emerging church mood/move, into a located expression.
I think Dan & Scott, who are the only people I can say I know in any way, are deeply missional, but more confident in the concrete nature of church and the location for evangelism within mission. That is something I resonate with too.
I think there are some connections for us within Deep Church, in terms of an exploration of missional church rooted within the historical missional church, and understanding of the nature of mission and evangelism.
I think that many are going to automatically assume (incorrectly) that this is old school evangelicalism, because if it’s high view of church within mission. But Dan & Scot’s understanding of culture, mission, evangelism are much more nuanced than that.
Jase
Comment by Paul
9.39 am on 29 Nov 2008
Thanks Jase
What is old skool evengelicism these days, I do lioke to fool myself that I’m down with the kids these days
Given Dan’s backgroundand the books that I’ve read of his (plus his very helpful comments below) I can see the +ives around mission, evangelism and having it rooted in a local practicing community, the whole go, gather, go gather model (rather than the go-go or go giveup models) is one that echos with my take on deep church.
Comment by Jason
9.51 am on 29 Nov 2008
those are the +ves I see too, yet you put so much more able, with the ‘go, gather, go gather model (rather than the go-go or go giveup models)’
I like that phrase
Comment by Paul
10.41 am on 30 Nov 2008
thanks mate, feel free to use it
Comments won’t nest below this level.
Reply here
Comment by Johnny Laird
11.30 am on 27 Nov 2008
Hi Jason
The Origins Project is certainly an interesting initiative, and I’ll be watching to see how it develops.
There are people associated with it who I have a lot of time and respect for. Eric Bryant at Mosaic, for one is one of the good guys with a real heart for loving people, and I know he’ll be working away in the background if Erwin McManus is involved.
Also, although I don’t know Rick McKinley, he strikes me a a guy who is totally sold out on Jesus.
Although I’m increasingly less comfortable with all that is big and bold (as this may turn out to be), I’m hoping for good things from the Origins Project…..ever the optimist!
Pax
J
Comment by rodney neill
1.45 pm on 27 Nov 2008
Hello Paul
given that Dan and Scott were once deeply involved in the emergent conversation it does seem that there are 2 networks on the horizon – a ‘conservative’ one based around Origins and a ‘progressive’ based around Emergent Village with quite sharply divided theological differences and outlook which does change the landscape in the emerging conversation…. it sounds as though Emergent Village was getting too ‘liberal’ for the Origins group so they have formed another network with a traditional evangelical emphasis. I am much more a kindred spirit with Emergent Village but I do wish the new group well….
Rodney
Comment by Paul
3.00 pm on 27 Nov 2008
Thanks Rodney, well here’s hoping for some polirisation free dialogue to continue
Comment by Jason Clark
8.35 am on 29 Nov 2008
Hi Rodney,
I do think emergent US has gone in a much more ‘post-church’, Jack Caputo/Pete Rollins direction. Whether that is liberal, is another question. But I think ecclesiology is the issue for many of us. It’s not place many of want to go to, and isn’t where emergent was when I first encountered it.
I think that there is a middle space that will see Dan & Scott located in that will draw people from either side of them.
And within the plurality of the body of Christ, shouldn’t anyone be free to innovate, and resource and relate to each other to bring vitality to the church? That’s my hope for this group.
And for people to locate themselves in new directions, or recovery of old one and creation of new ones, has to be done without being pejorative?
Otherwise we perpetuate the previous dichotomies and polarisations of church, that led to emergent in the first place, that sought to rise above that.
Comment by rodney neill
1.21 pm on 29 Nov 2008
Hello Jason,
Phyllis Tickle has characterised the big EV gathering called National Emergence as a gathering of emergents from within traditional denominations (anglimergent/presbymergent etc)and those who are post-church ….I am not sure how this fits into your assessment about ecclesiology issue?
I do think there is a considerable overlap with between a more traditional liberal perspective (ranging from John Hick to the non-theistic approach of Don Cuppit) and religion without religion
However I am not from an academic background and I might could be on the wrong track…..
I too have been impressed by the stories of Dan, Scott etc in the Origins group and wish them well. I appreciate the stated sentiments of trying to keep the bonds of friendship/relationship between the various personalities involved.
all the best,
Rodney
Comment by Jason
4.12 pm on 30 Nov 2008
Hi Rodney, I think the Hick/Cuppit and religion without religion are a dead end, genetically, in terms of seeing people
come to a cruciform identity, and organise their lives around belief in a real risen Jesus.
Great to dialogue mate, Jason
Comment by Charlie Boyd
5.57 pm on 27 Nov 2008
Networks scare me guys – some big CEO pulling the strings at one end – you are in our network and you are not – are networks just not another fancy way of saying sectarian grouping!Are there networks in God’s mind for His people?
Charlie
Comment by Jason Clark
8.37 am on 29 Nov 2008
Hi Charlie, do you really believe an network is automatically something with a CEO, and sectarian?
Surely a network is what people make of it, some negative and some life enabling.
I’m not sure how you get to your diagnosis from who Dan & Scott are, and what they are trying to do?
Comment by Dan
8.27 am on 28 Nov 2008
Hello!
Dan Kimball here… thought I would comment on some of the comments…
The name of this network/commununity isn’t known yet. We are just barely in the developing stages. We will name it next year. The “Origins Project” is our base web site to launch this from, but later we will have a name of some sort most likely.
In regards to why a network, as we have said it is more of a “community” being birthed. As a pastor myself, I know I need other leaders in my life that I connect with, hear what God is doing in their churches, get encouraged by etc. That is what this is. The common thing uniting us, is our passion for evangelism, Scripture and innovation for mission. So this group is being formed around the call of Jesus to make disciples, to “fish for people”, the continue the evangelism that we see throughout the book of Acts and onward. So that is what this is.
With theology, the Lausanne Covenant is one that was written from a multi-denomination, global and evangelism focused contect. So it just felt right that we could from the beginning state some of the doctrines which we do all hold. For those that think it is too conservative, if you knew us, and for those that know Scot McKnight – I don’t think you could call us fundamentalists. We are evangelicals, but certainly think through Scripture. Scot’s latest book is great in this regard. But at the same time, we unapologetically are saying that we believe doctrine is important and that what is in the Lausanne Covenant is good enough for us to then use for a basis for us and those who will become part of this community.
As for “progressive” or not… what I end up seeing as labelled “progessive” isn’t progressive to me. It seems it has all been happening for a long time in certain streams of the church, so it doesn’t seem progressive to me from what I understand.
Bottom line in all this, is that we aren’t ignoring the Kingdom in this life and loving neighbors as ourselves. That is primary of course. But at the same time, the Scripture and teachings of Jesus also speaks of eternity in the life to come and we desire people to know the joy of salvation and knowing Jesus in this life too.
With Charlie’s comment about those outside the church — our common bond from those involved in this so far, we are all immersed in the lives of those outside of the church and our church communities are very involved with those who aren’t Christians yet. It is a USA context obviously, different than the UK. But we are very familiar with those outside the church.
Last thing… with the USA emerging church, the origins were about evangelism and mission. That originally was the reason we were all connecting. It was first about the missing generations of Gen X and all that. Which later expanded and terminology changed, but it was our hearts about generations not knowing Jesus which was our focus. So if leadership needed to change, if worship gatherings changed and so many other things – that was the origins of it here. It changed through time over the 10-14 years I have been part of it. And several of us began missing the focus on evangelism and mission. Also theologically we were still evangelicals (in the original meaning of the word), so we wanted community and to learn from each other and that is what this is about.
Hope this makes sense…. always feel free to email me with any specific questions.
Dan
Comment by Jason Clark
8.38 am on 29 Nov 2008
Hi Dan, thanks for joining in, and for sharing your perspective, wishing you all the best in this adventure.
Comment by rodney neill
12.42 pm on 28 Nov 2008
Hello all,
I have just studied the Lousanne Covenant in depth and realised how much I have drifted from my evangelical heritage as my original reservations about some of the documents content has only increased when I read it again. My thanks to Dan for taking the time to comment. I wonder how much common ground in Christian theology there will be between this group and Emergent Village networks – we will see
Rodney
Comment by Jason Clark
8.40 am on 29 Nov 2008
Hi Charlie, I do hope people don’t see this group as anti-emergent, or feel the need to take sides.
We need something better than that, a friendship around the plurality of the body of Jesus, which I’m sure Dan & Scott are up for.
Emergent got a hard time when it started up, and still does, from other parts of the church, I hope emergent, and I’m trying to express that from our emergent uk side of the pond, want to celebrate people finding new expressions and ways to move forward.
Cheers, Jase
Comment by Charlie Boyd
6.14 pm on 29 Nov 2008
Jason thanks for all your responses!
I’m sure that Dan and Scott are brothers with integrity and even though I may not agree with their take on ‘ekklesia’ or all their Evangelical beliefs I wish them well in their own faith walks and those of the communities they are part of.I’m glad to hear Dan will have heard of John Shore as I fing his message prophetic to Western Christians!Socialogically I think he is spot on no matter what doctrines we hold.
I was not inferring that Dan or Scott see themselves as big CEO’S – their writings would seem to suggest the opposite!Yet I feel that all informal or not so informal networks usually end up with Big Daddy figures due mainly to the metaphysical desire of those involved as ‘followers’.I lived in California at 2 early Vineyard Fellowships in 1980’s when Vineyard was a movement and then a network of like minded fellowships.I loved their fluidity and not taking themselves too seriously.I think today however that even the most neutral observer would have to say they are a denomination with an established authority structure – just like many of the 200+ American Denominational groups.Methodism started as a movemeent of Reform and then went the same way.Networks sound very conforting and loose but history suggests that they usually settle into a denomination that defines itself as a separate entity from others.I’m sure Dan and Scott are aware of this tendency within our fallen selves to package what the Spirit has been gracious to plant in us and will try and side step this tenndency.By the way nothing against the Vineyard or any other denomination in particular apart from a great sadness and how this all seems to a sceptical world.
Yours
Charlie
Comments are now closed.