“Telling Our Story” – Dr. Lucas Woodford – Doxology Spotlight – April, 2013

Transcript (edited for readability).

All right, so telling our story. First, I'll begin a little bit by saying, well, what's my story, meaning who am I, and who are you? And we hear that often: what's my story. So we've been hearing that earlier. Dr. Kolb talked about it, the nature and the careful nature that we have to be with when we say story. What we're going to really get at too is looking at narrative, and the story that we're ultimately talking about is the gospel, the narrative of Christ, and what's going on.

But a little bit about myself: who am I, and how have I been wrapped into the story of Christ? I'll weave that in throughout the presentation this evening. Part of the element that you're going to see is I'm very big on vocation. Of course, vocation is the place where you are at in your life, where God has placed you outside of just your work and your job that you have, but where God has placed you. So I have a vocation as well as husband, and then father as well. And the nature of that vocation being, as you work and operate in those vocations, as a very God-pleasing activity for you to do, independent of, as it relates to any gospel sharing, that the work going on is you are a mask behind which God is working. So I certainly recognize that as a father and a husband.

And so there's my family up there. My wife, Becca. We are celebrating 15 years coming up here in the end of May, and our four children. Isabella is our oldest, Colorbella; she's nine. Thaddeus is my boy; you see him making his goofy face there. He's good at that. He's six. Alethia is my three-year-old. And then our youngest is, we call her Claysey, but it's short for Ecclesia. We named her. And so, of course, pastors name their kids goofy things sometimes. So we have followed suit.

All right, as for things I like to do, hobbies, you say. I'm a hunter. I certainly enjoy the outdoors. I like hunting, bow hunting, and there I'm duck hunting. That's with my boy Thaddeus. He got into it this year. I even got, I like to film it too. I do some filming as well, and we got a bunch of that on film, but that's some hobbies I have. We love gardening, big garden, so it's coming up gardening season. It finally melted here in Minnesota, so we can do that. And I enjoy reading. Usually got my nose in a book when I have time as well.

All right, a little bit about myself, but now the story that we'll be talking about. We are at a time where people are emerging in this world where they are finding they don't know their own story. That is, they're looking at things in a world without meaning. And to help us kind of understand that, first, we can take a look at art. Postmodern art, and the arts often lead the way of determining what's happening in the culture. And so what we'll compare it to is modern: what was modern art and postmodern art, and then we'll look at, again, what was modern culture and modern thought, with postmodern culture and postmodern thought. We're simplifying pretty extremely here, but at least laying a foundation for things to help us understand, right?

So normally modern art was what was considered realistic and narrative. You could look at a picture, and it would tell the story, or at least you could relate to it in some sense; it had some confines to it. So it portrayed a world beyond itself, but it stayed contained and portrayed something possible. It was something possible in the world. Whereas postmodern art that you see up there, sometimes very schizophrenic, if we want to call it that way, where it's art that's created, not according to any conventional or standard way of producing art. And it's not necessarily following any rules, but just creates the art, and then after it's done, establishes some rules, perhaps, with it. And so it has a little bit of schizophrenic nature, perhaps, to it. So we look at it with art itself.

But what's interesting is then we've got postmodern entertainment as well. And so to help us understand postmodern entertainment and postmodern art, it's always fascinating when postmodern entertainment begins commenting on postmodern art. So what better avenue to take a look at and get a lesson about postmodern art than from Moe, the bartender, on the Simpsons, all right? Just a short clip to help us understand that.

All right, so you get a little bit of an idea of understanding. Sometimes it's complex, but just weird for the sake of weird. Sometimes that's helpful, but sometimes people do try to create a rhyme and a reason to it. Now, that's helpful for us in looking at: now, how does it translate into our culture? When we look at, where are our people at? Where are our youth at? Where are our young adults at, and where is the culture, and all of our people at?

All right, so a lot of people are emerging right now in a culture where they're not necessarily understanding who they are, what's their purpose, what's the story of the world? In other words, they don't necessarily know or have that background. They don't have an overarching understanding of things. And part of that has progressed out of where we came from, in terms of our modern way of thinking, into our postmodern way of thinking.

So up here, I have for you the reality of where we emerge from a modernity to a postmodern era. And again, I'm simplifying to the extreme here. But when we talk about modernity, we're talking about the Enlightenment, or the Age of Reason, where intellect reigns supreme, and there was the idea that there was this grand narrative that could be utilized and everyone would understand it as part of where they had come from, or the story of the world. And so some of the characteristics of the modern era was that there was hope in progress, right? That they had a recognition that they were moving forward. The intellect was reigning supreme, and we can move ourselves forward, and there was this great progress in the intellect, the Industrial Revolution.

But that project then failed. And one of the markers of that, of course, was two world wars. There was a recognition that somehow we weren't advancing as far as we thought we would, and there wasn't as much advancement or progress or promise. There was belief and promise, but now the promise didn't deliver. And so we became very skeptical of that. And so then there began the thought postmodern. The postmodern thought then recognized that, well, this wasn't really going to work.

Part of the challenge of the modern era was the understanding that with the Enlightenment and the age of intellect was they were creating this backdrop of a story, an overarching story, but because they were using intellect that reigned supreme, they were trying to remove the storyteller. Now, who's the storyteller? God. So they're removing the storyteller from the story. And what happens then? Well, then we'd get what we're emerging into now, postmodernism.

Postmodernism has been around for a while, but here it rejects the certainty of knowledge. And postmodern thinkers and philosophers are quite angry, if you will, at those who were of the intellect, or the Enlightenment, that said, well, we have this reason, this Age of Reason, and this intellect that's going on. They're rejecting that. You were so certain about it, but it didn't deliver what it had said it would, or what it had promised. And so postmodernism then has no hope. And so then you begin seeing these trends within postmodernism called nihilism or meaninglessness, that there isn't any purpose derived from things.

And especially, one of the things that you could characterize postmodernism by is an incredulity. They're incredulous toward an overarching story. They don't buy it. There isn't an overarching story here. They're fine with perhaps little stories, or little narratives, that might define things that might be true for that particular person, or that particular people, but not one grand overarching story. So what happens then? Well, then you start getting truth that becomes relative, all right? So there's a rejecting, then, of this truth, rejecting certainty of knowledge and absolute truth.

There is a deconstruction of reality, or they try and pull it all apart. I suppose it might be the idea of, if you're in culinary terms, you think about deconstruction when they're cooking. It means, if you have a lasagna, you cook all the individual parts all by themselves, you get them all cooked, and then when you serve them, then you just put it on the plate individually. It might be all the ingredients to lasagna, but it ain't mom's lasagna. Okay? So they're deconstructing it. So then it relativizes things like morality and truth, it fosters that nihilism and meaninglessness, and it rejects any grand narrative.

All right, so to help us understand this, again, looking at this from the perspective of entertainment, our culture is filled with entertainment. So, again, what better way to take a look at this than one of the most popular TV shows of all time? Seinfeld, all right? And, self-admittedly, a show about nothing. And this clip is fascinating when it gives us a little bit of a narrative nature, if you will, our narration, on the postmodern culture, understanding of our culture via postmodern entertainment. Right, it's up.

So did you catch that? Who needs a story? All right? It's about nothing. All right, and this was early on, years back, compared to now. But it was, again, it was rated in 2002, by TV Guide, the most popular show of all time, the most popular show of all time. So we begin to look at what people are being influenced by and seeing. We are a culture of technology and a culture of entertainment. So when we recognize the spread of postmodernism, the spread of this thought, we can see how it makes it in, not only just to art forms, but then into entertainment forms as well.

And one of the most powerful entertainment forms right now, of course, is via TV screens, whether that's a computer or your TV screen at home. The proliferation, or the spread of postmodernism, is quite profound and continuing to spread regularly. So you can take a look at: the entertainment industry spreads postmodernism into every home via TV and any Wi-Fi screen. 2009 to 2010, TV viewing was then at an all-time high, 151 to 153 hours per month. In 2012, the average American watched five hours a day.

So the story of the West for us, the story in the West, is fast becoming one of amusement and distraction. Who needs a story? All right? Seinfeld went for the art of the unhappy, but the art of being very funny. If you follow the storylines, it was all very childish. They wanted to be able to not have the responsibilities of an adult, but yet have the benefit, supposedly, of being adults. It was a new storyline influencing how people thought. And that's just not the only show.

All right? Look at the, well, look at a clip here momentarily from the Simpsons. The Simpsons are the longest-running sitcom of all time. They're still going on right now, 25th season right now. All right? And it's, again, a cartoon. So we recognize, and this is what's going in, this is what's going into our homes. Our kids, our adults, our families are seeing these things, even if that's not regular fare in your home. You can talk to your confirmation students sometime, you would understand, or your families, and you would recognize this.

All right, and so a great book, if you are one that likes to read, a great book is the one that's up there now called iPod, YouTube, Wii Play. It's a great take on the entertainment nature of our society right now and our culture. It has theological engagements with entertainment, and it really unpacks the nature of our culture. It's a great diagnosis, and it's written by a Methodist, but it's quite fascinating. It seems to be almost a Word and Sacrament Methodist who values the liturgy, and as formative, as we'll take a look at.

I got a few quotes on the blue sheets; they're free to take a look at. I will take a look at a couple of them there, as he looks at the impact of entertainment on our culture. Take a look at that first quote there, at page one, at the top there. His premise, when he writes, he says this: "I write with a conviction that entertainment's massive impact on us is rooted mostly in its mundane everydayness, in the way it shapes our subjectivities, affects our affections, cultures our choices, and permeates our possibilities. This power isn't accidental. As commercial enterprise, entertainment intends to shape patterns of thinking, feeling, and acting."

Did you catch that? There's an intentional endeavor by entertainment to shape patterns of thinking, feeling, and acting. All right? Now we can see it, all right? Monkey see, monkey do, all right? But we're mindful of that. Okay, now, so I want to be careful over what this isn't saying, that we have to shun all technology and all entertainment. He creates a nice way for us to navigate through that. But nonetheless, we have to first be able to identify it and diagnose it.

All right, so take a look again at that second quote there. He says, "This requires us to notice how the structures and processes of entertainment direct perception, foster desire, generate symbols, structure activity, orient goals, shape relationships, and form community. The truth about entertainment, in short, is that it is a profoundly powerful, formational process that we will misunderstand completely if we treat it as merely a collection of discrete pleasures we control by our power of choice."

All right, so again, a recognition, not only of what's on TV, but if you have any, do we have any gamers among us? All right, anyone, gamers? So talk to some of your youth who are gamers. The graphics, the storylines, we talk about narratives, the narratives that the video games create nowadays are intricate, all right? And so they create a narrative, and these people, serious gamers, sometimes get lost for hours upon end, sometimes days on end, playing the game, getting lost in the narrative of the game. It is formative.

All right, so finally, then, recognizing this, that final quote on there, he talks about this word called "truthiness." It's a word that Stephen Colbert, from the Colbert Report on Comedy Central, he made up the word in 2005 as, again, a pundit upon our political spin-zoned, half-truth culture. He made up the word "truthiness" to identify that political culture, but that's carried over now into the general culture at large. The definition of truthiness is the quality of sounding true without being true. The quality of sounding true, without being true.

And so he recognizes here, "When we encounter truthiness on TV, it can remind us of a 50-year-old habit of allowing television to frame reality and determine truth. Because Christian faith has traditionally situated moral discourse, authority, and perception in the church's mission to worship, witness, and serve the risen Christ, we need to reflect on the degree to which our entertainments have now distorted or displaced a properly ecclesial, that is, church-centered, ethic."

You see what he's getting at? He says that the church could be in danger of losing its story if we don't identify this and speak to it in a positive manner, right? So again, it's formative in nature. It's a great read opportunity for you, if you'd like to, if you're one who likes to read that; check it out.

And so here's what I mean by this. Again, I'm a Star Wars fan. Any other Star Wars fans here? What's the good news? 2015, right? The Jedis live, all right? So they're coming back again, all right? The first three are the original: four, five, and six, all right? So they were well known. The latest one, two, and three weren't as good as the first three, perhaps, from my perspective. Nonetheless, you've all had this in confirmation, when you're teaching your catechumens and catechizing them, and they have questions, or things come up, or you try and relate to them as best as possible. Oftentimes I might use Star Wars. And we heard Dr. Kolb allude to it earlier, right? "May the Force be with you," all right? Right, all right?

But I had a catechumen. He thought we borrowed that from Star Wars. So this tells you the formative nature of our entertainment, all right? That he was willing to take that, that it must have come from Star Wars, rather than that's the historic salutation from the Scriptures, all right? So they're willing to catch onto that; it's formative. And so when we get to later on talking about the liturgy and the nature of the liturgy, the liturgy itself is certainly a narrative, and it forms and shapes us, and that is actually fascinating, the answer that he often gives for trying to counteract that and form our people. But we certainly have to teach it and help them understand where it comes from.

All right, so another fascinating discourse and diagnosis on our culture is, you definitely, if you don't get the other one, you definitely do need to get this book. It's called The Narcissism Epidemic, all right? The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age of Entitlement, all right? And there's some quotes, again, on your handout, just a few of them. This is an absolutely fascinating read, written by social scientists who take a look at the nature of our culture and the people in our culture. In short, we are, as Americans, a culture full of people who are full of themselves, all right? Narcissism, the idea that it's all about me, all right?

So listen to that first quote on there regarding the narcissism epidemic, and they say it's epidemic proportions, again, because it's being spread and proliferated particularly by technology. When it's all about you, what are great avenues to lift yourself up and advertise yourself, brand yourself, and market yourself out there in cyberspace? Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, MySpace, all right? You have all these things that are out there that our youth are on. If for no other reason, get on Facebook and have your youth friend you. Some of my youth forget that they friended me. They post things on there that they wish their pastor hadn't seen, but nonetheless, gives me great opportunity to have questions or have conversations with them. Because, and you have to be careful, of course, because they'll defriend you very fast if you're on their wall and posting things on their wall. Nonetheless, it's just being mindful, again, about how this is fostering and breeding narcissism.

So you look at that first quote that says, "In America, there is the relentless rise of narcissism in our culture. Not only are there more narcissists than ever, but non-narcissistic people are seduced by the increasing emphasis on material wealth, physical appearance, celebrity, celebrity worship, and attention-seeking. Standards have shifted, sucking the otherwise humble people into the vortex of granite countertops, tricked-out MySpaces, and plastic surgery."

You know what the number-one, on-the-rise graduation gift for females from high school is? Breast augmentation, or implants. Because we are a culture consumed with image. Okay, a culture consumed with image. And it goes toward identity, too, helping our youth and even the culture itself understand what our identity is, all right?

So, for example, but this is broader, yet this is still a broader epidemic that's going on. When the Associated Press caught wind of this, when this first came out in 2009, it came out in article form before that; there was a lot of negative reactions to this, to people that were being indicted as narcissists. Of course, a narcissist being called a narcissist doesn't like being called a narcissist, all right? But there was some negative reaction. And so they put out some places where you can respond to it, in different interviews and the papers that were publishing. Take a listen to this, of what was happening.

"When the Associated Press covered their study of narcissism increasing over generations, they first covered it in 2007. Dozens of college students wrote news stories and opinion pieces in response. Very few college students disputed the notion that their peers were self-centered. Instead, they argued that their generation's narcissism was perfectly acceptable. For example, interviewed in the Daily Pennsylvanian, University of Pennsylvania freshman Kyle Johnson said, 'This extreme self-esteem is justified, since this generation will be remembered as the greatest generation of all time.' San Diego State University junior Camille Clasby protested in the Daily Aztec, 'But we are special. There's nothing wrong with knowing that. It's not vanity that this generation exhibits, it's pride. And no wonder, with all that we're accomplishing, that we have a lot to be proud of.'"

All right, so those are just a few examples of how their self-inflated ego is continuing to permeate and go all over. But the problem that they identify is this: we're breeding that in the culture. So they look at even, from kindergarten curriculums, that have as the basis for their curriculum, "you are special." That's the basis for their curriculum. And the basis of self-esteem. They disprove the myth that in order to be successful in life, you have to have good self-esteem, right? That's a myth. And in fact, we're inflating people to the point of narcissism by trying to make everything always about self-esteem. We don't want to hurt their self-esteem.

All right, again, apparently Americans think they're number one at a lot of things. For example, they looked at eighth graders. Forty percent of American eighth graders thought that they were awesome at math. They tested them, and what did they find out? No, they weren't. And then they had a comparison study to Koreans. Koreans, only six percent of them thought they were awesome at math, and they went head to head. Who do you think came out on top by a mile? The Koreans, all right? That's because in the Asian culture, they're taught to not boast, because if you boast, and if you say that you're good at something, you're going to have a fall. So Chinese people, especially, they do not boast. It's against their culture.

So here's the reality of what they observe. Americans think they're number one at a lot of things, but what they are, what we know Americans are number one at, is thinking that they're number one, all right?

So it continues on, fascinating, and this is one of the most fascinating points. How many of you have picked up or read, and it's a decent book to read, You Lost Me, by the Barna Group, David Kinnaman's You Lost Me? It has some interesting things to say about how, in the church, we've lost a particular demographic. And in the book, it talks about the demographic age group of being from the late teens to the late 20s, that particular demographic that, for whatever reason, cross-denomination, the church has lost. It has some interesting things to say. Who do you think they revealed and identified as the most narcissistic age group? The same age group, all right, the same age group.

Now, again, that's helpful in terms of diagnosis, but this does not then give us permission to dismiss them, of course. It's helpful for diagnosis, and now the challenge then comes for us in the midst of our culture: How do we go to where they are at and proclaim that good news of Christ to them? How do we evangelize? "Thy kingdom come" is what we're about. And so we're certainly taking a look at that.

And they certainly do offer, from the secular perspective, they are not only about diagnosis, they are also about remedy, from a secular perspective. A lot of it might be simply what I would call common sense. But if you look at it, a lot of our culture has lost common sense, because they're always focused inward. But so there is helpful diagnosis and remedy that they would offer in there, all right?

And interestingly enough, and this was like a gut punch when I read this, our buddy and our good friend Joel Osteen was looked at in the book, all right? And he even makes the book for his message, as one that is not counter to it, but one who is contributing toward the narcissism epidemic, because his constant message is about having a better you, always about self-esteem, and that God wants you to be happy. And here's where I talk about having a gut punch: when they notice, he says, the tragedy is that Christianity has become a yes-man for the culture. Right? Helpful for us to take a look at.

Again, that's not necessarily, of course, where we're at, but nonetheless, we have to be mindful. They're giving warnings. Their phrase in there is that narcissism culture is always about the sizzle, and they don't care about the substance, all right? And they give warnings for people about that. I think us in the church can also be mindful about that. When we're always going for the sizzle and have no substance, here's what's going to happen, all right?

And so here, that second quote on there, let me read this to you here now. It's indicting of the whole culture. Take a look at that quote again: "Understanding the narcissism epidemic is important because its long-term consequences," look what they say, "are destructive to society." Destructive to society. "American culture's focus on self-admiration has caused a flight from reality to the land of grandiose fantasy."

And here's the deal. That is a completely postmodern thought. This surreal fantasy, not being able to distinguish between what is fantasy and what is real. It's a complete fruition or manifestation of being indulgent in the postmodern thought. So it says, "We have phony rich people with interest-only mortgages and piles of debt, phony beauty with plastic surgery and cosmetic procedures, phony athletes with performance-enhancing drugs, phony celebrities via reality TV and YouTube, phony genius students with grade inflation, a phony national economy with, at this point, eleven trillion dollars" — boy, if it was only eleven trillion right now — "phony feelings of being special among children, with parenting and education focused on self-esteem, and phony friends with a social networking explosion. All this fantasy might feel good, but unfortunately, reality always wins. The mortgage meltdown and the resulting financial crisis are just demonstrations of how inflated desires eventually crashed to earth."

And I agree with Dr. Kolb. I think we are coming close to another major economic meltdown of sorts within our country, if you are one that follows the markets and the currency and looking at things. And again, that'll be, I suppose, a bit of soul-searching going on. Don't know if that'll be a corrective toward the narcissism epidemic or not. We'll have yet to wait to see, but that does not hinder us then in our gospel proclamation. It's a fascinating thing to observe from a social scientist perspective, but nonetheless, we still go forward.

So we might then ask the question: what does this mean? That's the good Lutheran question, right? Well, Ecclesiastes tells us that there is nothing new under the sun. And we have a powerful Word and a powerful Lord who speaks to this and through this, and in the midst of it, and leads us forward.

All right, so that's where I want to look now at point number two: a Word that gives meaning. All right, so, a Word that gives meaning. What I want you, if you got your Bibles, fine, open up. Luke chapter one, verses one to four. The prologue to the Gospel of Luke. Fascinating how you can just read Scripture over and over, and then finally something hits you in the midst of what you might be studying. And this is one of those times, when I was reading the Gospel of Luke. And by the way, it's always a good thing; one of the things I challenge my congregation with is at least read all the way through one of the Gospels over and over, at least one a month. It's the story. It's the narrative of Christ, knowing the Gospels, all right?

So I'm reading through it, the prologue here, Luke one, one to four: "Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative" — if you're one who underlines or highlights, underline it — "a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught."

A narrative. In other words, the story. That's what they were passing on. The story that's going on, the narrative that has been accomplished among us. What was accomplished? Well, the life, the death, the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ. And that had been taught, the Word, ministers of the Word, all right? And there's an orderly account of it, and that they were taught it. This is a particular Word, then, that gave meaning to these individuals, and, of course, also to us, that we are wrapped into this narrative. We are made a part of and weaved into the narrative of Christ in the life that we have, all right?

So the gospel story then is to be proclaimed. It's more than a mere statement of propositional truth, all right? So remember, postmoderns, they're incredulous toward certain propositional truths, but they're fine with hearing a narrative. So we are mindful that within a narrative, propositional truths can be made. Speech acts go on. They occur. But they're open toward the story, so let's be mindful of them, telling the gospel story. So that's more than just simply propositional truth. So it contains people, places, things, sinners, brokenness, despair, all that are met with hope, love, forgiveness, and compassion, in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, right? Mindful of that.

I like what Jenson has to say about this. He says, "It is the church's mission to tell all who will listen, God included, that the God of Israel has raised his servant, Jesus, from the dead." God included, he says. I'm mindful of that, again, when we are telling this story, right?

So if we're going to speak the truth of God's Word to a culture that's rejected absolute truth, we must do so, it's my contention, then, being mindful of the narrative means that God has put at our disposal. All right? Again, Luke reminds us of this, as he sets it out in his prologue. All right, and so this is why then the church has long held, as its definitive marks, the proclamation and the administration of what? The Word, right? The Word, the narrative, the story, the proclamation, meaning the telling of it. What are the marks of the church? The administration, the proclamation of the Word of God in both its oral and sacramental forms, all right?

And so we're reminded of that then from the Smalcald Articles, where it says, "Therefore we should and must insist that God does not want to deal with us human beings except by means of his external Word and Sacrament. Everything that boasts of being from the Spirit apart from such a Word and Sacrament is of the devil." So in the midst — what's my point here, then? — in the midst of our culture, how does God want to deal with us? By his Word and by his Sacraments. Even in a postmodern culture, all right, he still wants to deal with us in that manner, all right?

So then we move to recognition of that: the great confession, all right? And this is where I took a look at this and studied in my dissertation, mindful of that, the great confession. What's one of the most complete and yet most concise and most short opportunities for us to confess the faith and tell the narrative? It's by the creed. At least that's my contention. And the creed is much more than just a simple propositional statement. How does it begin? "I believe," all right? "I believe," meaning it is wrapping you into that narrative. You've been wrapped into this narrative of what has been proclaimed. It's propositional truth, but now you are a part of it. It starts with "Credo," "I believe," all right?

So the creeds have historically always given expression to faith. They begin with that word, "I believe." And so the nature of understanding a creed, then, is not to seal the faith into the confines of a nostalgic certitude, but rather to give the faith a living voice that is displayed in and lived in the community of saints, or the Holy Christian Church, right?

So Alister McGrath says it this way: "The creeds emphasize that to believe is to belong. To become a Christian is to enter a community of faith whose existence stretches right back to the upper room in which Jesus met with his disciples." So, in other words, creeds are little narratives that tell a story that brings you into that story: "I believe."

All right, to exemplify that, I'll share with you a personal tragedy that happened in my family. I'm the second of four kids. I grew up on a dairy farm, the first seven years of my life. My sister, Heidi, was the oldest, then me — she was two years older than me — then my brother, Matt, and then my brother, Josh. My parents, certainly in their vocation as parents, my dad was a farmer, worked hard as a farmer. My mom was the wife of a farmer. She was a teacher as well. They were Christian parents. They certainly had us, as kids, baptized and taught us in the faith. We sang the faith and the hymns.

But as the curse of sin has it, my sister Heidi got cancer. Got it when she was just turning five. A Wilms tumor, that affects the kidneys. They went for every kind of treatment they could that they could possibly do. There came a point when, at that time, they could do no more. It had ravaged her body. And so they invited my parents to take my sister home with them.

So at the time, I was four, and she was sick. And so it finally came one day. And this is as my mother tells it. She and Heidi were at home, and she knew something was up, and so she had my dad come and get myself and my brother, Matt. We were only 18 months apart. And he took us out, and she was sitting with Heidi in the living room, and Heidi was laying and sleeping on the couch. And all of a sudden, while she's asleep, she sits up, eyes are still closed, and she puts her arms out like this. And so my mom comes on over to her, hurries up, and picks her up, and says, "Heidi, is everything okay?" And Heidi then kind of opens up her eyes, and then looks at my mom and says, "Mom, I know where I'm going to go now. I'm going to be with Jesus." And a minute later, she died.

Now, her vocation was as a six-year-old riddled with cancer. Now, to be sure, she could have witnessed, and my mom says she often did, to the nurses, when she would sing hymns. Her favorite hymn was "Go Tell It on the Mountain." One of the things, the phrases my mom distinctly remembers, though, is that in the midst of going through the treatments, Heidi would often say, "No, mom, I don't want that one. That one doesn't have enough Jesus in it." She was wrapped into the story of Christ. She believed; she was in the story of Christ, his life, his death, and his resurrection. We have hope. My parents have hope.

So the recognition, then, that a creed, when we say, "I believe," it draws us into the story. And when we say that, again, that's the narrative. That's Christ's story.

Now, the Apostles' Creed itself, when we take a look at it, sometimes it can be viewed as, again, simple propositional statements or doctrinal brief manifestos regarding various heresies that were going on. And to be sure, the Nicene Creed had that as well, but we recognize the Apostles' Creed has a distinct nature to it; it was used in baptismal liturgy, and the baptismal rites as well, and we still retain it, don't we, as part of the baptismal liturgy now. But a recognition that the creed is more than just mere doctrinal statements. The nature of it is always based upon the narrative of the entire Scriptures, or formal principle.

So even when we look at the first article itself, in our context today, perhaps the first article, "I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth," that can be a good line where we might use it to refute or to help our people understand that, well, it's not evolution that created us, but it's God, the Father Almighty. And so we use it, that it takes it back to Genesis chapter one. But we remember that article is not limited to Genesis chapter one. It encompasses the whole of the narrative. For throughout it, remember, that is God the Father Almighty. So you can read through all of the Old Testament and be reminded that this encompasses God the Father, who's the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who confessed him as Father. You can look through the Psalms, numerous Psalms that delight in God as Maker of heaven and earth. So again, the narrative nature of the creed is broader than just Genesis chapter one. It's all-encompassing and reminding of what God is at work and doing, what he has done for his good creatures.

The second article, of course, it does focus primarily on the events of the major high points and the events in the life of Christ: incarnation, birth, and then jumps to his passion, his suffering, resurrection, and ascension. But the gap that's in there does not then take away from the narrative on which it is based, all right? It assumes that and recognizes it and draws it into that life of Christ. Because, of course, we know that Jesus also healed the sick, cast out demons, walked on water, and preached a sermon or two, all right? Nonetheless, the Creed points us to, as the Small Catechism confesses, that Jesus is my Lord. Okay? And again, that wraps us into the narrative of who Jesus is, my Lord, into that story of him who is our Lord and our Redeemer.

Now, the third article, then, and this is a good bit of what I focused on in my dissertation, and then also weaved it into the book, points to the narrative, then, of the Holy Spirit, that we can't understand who the Holy Spirit is and what the Holy Spirit does apart from the narrative whole. Okay? But distinct, this article is also how God makes people to be a part of the story, all right? And so I want to spend a little bit of time on this, a recognition of it.

So for the benefit of this, take a look. I want a thought experiment here with you for a moment. If it were possible — which it is not — but if it were possible, who do you suppose might be the most important person of the Holy Trinity? Remember, this is a hypothetical impossibility. But for the sake of our thought experiment, who might you contend would be the most important person of the Holy Trinity? Now, God the Father? I mean, he's the Creator, after all. Or is it God the Son? We're in the midst of the Easter season right now, correct? He's the one that redeemed us. Or is it the lesser-known, or perhaps least-referenced, Holy Spirit, the one who is more difficult, perhaps, for us to picture? A Father we can relate to and understand, a Son we know, but a Spirit? Was he like Casper the ghost, or is he like the Spirit of St. Louis? What is he? Okay?

We have a Holy Spirit taker out there, all right? And what would be a rationale for that? His purpose is to point us to the Son, right? The Holy Spirit is the one who gives us faith. So this is, again, if it were possible — which it is not — this is who also, I would contend, would be the most important person, would be the Holy Spirit. Because why? How does the explanation of the Apostles' Creed's third article go? "I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to him, but the Holy Spirit has called me by the gospel," right? So the Holy Spirit is the one who gives faith, all right?

And so the place where we find the Holy Spirit — and I think this is very important for us in recognizing the place where the Holy Spirit is found — is not in the wind, not in the culture, and not in our emotions, but in the clear Word of God, spoken and sacramental, all right? So the recognition, where the Holy Spirit is at work is where he wants to be found, and that is in God's Word, all right?

And so this is the core of our confession, all right? The recognition, again, "I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy Christian Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting." It gives clarity to the mission of God. Because the Holy Spirit — note what's in that article of faith: the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting — intentionally placed into that article of faith. One might think, well, that should be in the second article. But no, it's under the third article. Why? Because it's the Holy Spirit who gives us, who points us to, and who is always about Jesus.

So it's the recognition that this is the where, then, that not only how God calls us to faith, but then also, when we're talking about evangelism — and this is, again, this is the core of our confession — when we talk about evangelism, we look at that after that first part of it, where "I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength," then look at it again: "In the same way he calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies the whole Christian church on earth." In other words, it's the recognition, again, that as we evangelize, the same process that called you into the faith, the same power that brought you into faith, will also be the same power that we are able to use to talk to the "nones," and bring others into faith. And this is the core of our confession, all right?

What does the Scripture say? Isaiah 55:11: the Word is not void. Or one of my favorite verses — it happens to be my confirmation verse — Romans one, verse 16: "I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes," all right? So it's the core of our confession.

Mindful of that, again, not by my own reason or strength. I did one little slight switch in there; 2.4, I think, is now 2. I'm jumping to that one. Again, as an example, a recognition of this, that I cannot by my own reason or strength: again, I grew up on the farm. My folks, again, had brought me to worship regularly in worship. My uncle happened to be the one who was pastor there, Emmanuel Lutheran Church in Milbank, South Dakota, and he baptized me. Now, the Lord made use of my uncle's mouth and hands. So I was called by the gospel. Certainly, the Lord made use of my uncle, but it wasn't by him, of himself, but the Heavenly Father called me by the gospel.

And so I went on in the Christian faith, under the care of my parents, who, again, whose vocation was a farmer, and as a boy, a five-year-old boy, my vocation was a son, the son of a farmer. And what does the son of a farmer love to do? Hang out with his dad on the farm. And so, as much as I could, as much as my dad would let me, I would go with him to go do the chores and do the chores. One day, it was raining, a few months after Heidi's funeral. He says, "All right, son, come on out. We are going to go out and round up the heifers," all right? And so we're going out to the pasture, and he says, "I got an important job for you, son." And so he went on to describe it for me, and basically he made me a glorified doorman, where he was going to go out and round up the heifers. I was going to stand right next to the entryway and make sure that they were walking into the barn.

So, with my tattered blue raincoat on, and my hat, and my rubber boots, and my favorite herding stick in hand, I stood there, and everything was going wonderfully — that is, until Nancy came along. Now, Nancy is an ornery heifer that we had. And I found out that Nancy didn't like me. So not by my own reason or strength could I make her go into that barn. Finally, she got fed up with me. She came over and head-butted me straight down into the mud, and decided to keep on going, as her play toy, pushing me all along the mud, the manure, all over the pasture. The closest I've come to flying on my own. She's pushing me along. I've got mud, and I've got manure flying in my mouth, hitting rocks, all kinds of things, and I'm screaming. Remember, I'm five; I'm terrified.

And all of a sudden, I stop. Come to a standstill. And I turn and I look. My dad had traversed that pasture in just a matter of seconds, and I looked, and I saw, still in the air, he had ripped from the ground this massive piece of lumber, and he had launched it, and sent it flying in the air, and I watched in awe as it connected with Nancy, and sent her reeling. Now, he hustled over to where I was, and I was standing there; it was a mess. Covered in mud, full of manure, my boot and my clothes were everywhere, bloody lip. I was filthy. My dad didn't care. He came and picked me up. My filth smeared all over him. In a matter of moments, he brought me back to the house and had me washed clean, sitting safely on his lap.

Not by my own reason or strength. The Heavenly Father used the vocation of my uncle to baptize me and call me by the gospel. He also used the vocation of my earthly father to protect and care for me. Washed clean by both. Not by my own reason or strength. And again, this is the nature, the core of our confession, that it's the power of God's Word that leads us forward.

And being mindful of that, then, when we look at third-article theology, then, I contend, that equals third-article evangelism. Where we recognize what is the power that is at work, the third article, of course, confesses that. It is the Word of God. The second petition also confesses that, "Thy kingdom come," all right? What is the second petition all about? All right, "God's kingdom comes when our Heavenly Father gives us his Holy Spirit, so that by his grace we believe his holy Word and lead godly lives here in time and there in eternity." Again, drawing in the nature of where we are at, here in time, in our vocation, where God has placed us by the power of his Word, living those godly lives.

Of course, then also the recognition, then, the third commandment, God gives us that. The third commandment: remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. We should fear and love God so that we may not despise preaching and his Word, but hold it sacred and gladly hear and learn it. Again, this is fascinating as we look at it, all right? Look at it apart from each of the core portions of the classical catechism. Do you remember when Luther, in his preface to the Small Catechism, when he was ranting and raving, what didn't the people even know? The Lord's Prayer, the Apostles' Creed, and the Commandments. All right, and this nature of knowing these things. So not only is it a core for our theology, but it's a core for our evangelism, but ultimately then it's also a core for our discipleship.

Again, it's a beautiful narrative, the way that the catechism works. A wonderful narrative that keeps us not only in the faith, but confessing the power of God's Word at work, but being able to then be discipled by it over and over again. So even in the face of a culture that is full of meaninglessness, the gospel message is still to be proclaimed, with all boldness. Even where Homer Simpson and Jerry Seinfeld might amuse us with their emptiness, this message is still to be proclaimed. Even when we have iPods, YouTubes, and all kinds of video games, we still proclaim this message. And we need to be bold about it.

So I like what Gerhard Forde says. He told this to the church years ago. He says, "If the church is to recover a sense of its identity and mission today, it must begin to consider what it means to preach the gospel in radical fashion." He leaves no uncertainty as to what this means. He says, "The radical gospel of justification by faith alone does not allow for a middle-of-the-road position. Either one must proclaim it as unconditionally as possible, or forget it." Right? The point, then, is that at the center of evangelism and outreach must always be the gospel. Must always be the Word of God.

All right, so that brings us then to the church's story. We recognize what is the church's story, and it's very important for us. This is the church's story that we want to talk about and tell others about, in the midst of our postmodern culture, a culture full of entertainment and narcissism. All right, and one of the things is, of course, this great, earnest desire to seek and save the lost. We want the kingdom of God to come. We want his Word to be proclaimed. But interestingly, one of the things that I took a look at is, in the midst of this, there seems to be some confusion going on, even among the church today, where perhaps the vision of the church and the mission of the church might be a little bit blurred, all right?

So that begins, then, with the nature of what has been called the Great Commission. Matthew 28:18 through 20. So to take a look at that, if you want to open up, that's fine, Matthew 28:18 to 20. I have it titled there, "Matthew 28: Is it law or gospel? Sorting it out." So just a general poll, what is it? Law? Gospel? Yes. All right? Yes. All right, but that is certainly there, but how is it often portrayed? Okay, so I think that is the challenge for us to collegially look at and explore as we take a look at that.

And the further question for me is, why have those couple of verses gained superiority in all of the canon of Scripture? How is it that those verses have gained superiority and been that which drives, or perhaps has become, the marching orders for the church? So you've probably experienced this in various different ways. Again, the zeal to reach out to the lost is wonderful. That's good. Yes, that's what we want to do. But we are mindful of it at the same time, of how we go about recognizing and confessing our faith in the midst of that.

But often, I've experienced this, and maybe you have as well: people are asked, or it's portrayed, they ask you, "Are you a Great Commission congregation? Are you a Great Commission pastor?" Okay, now what does that mean? Oftentimes, there's a set of presuppositions by those asking the question that may not be the same as what I understand that to mean. So sometimes it's good for us, then, to recognize, what is the Great Commission all about? Where did the term "Great Commission" come from? How long has it been around? Has it historically always been used as it is now being used by many in the church? Right?

And so, certainly, there's a recognition, again, that we've recognized both law and gospel. There's a command in there, but as I'm going to point out also, the primary function of it, as the Great Commission, is gift. The Great Commission is all gift, all right? So we're going to unpack that a little bit here.

But what I want to do is, there's some more quotes on there that I want to take a look at, and I want to make note of, again, this has become quite a distinctive mark and challenge within the church. So as you turn to that side, it should be the quotes by David Bosch. Actually, it starts still on the first page. David Bosch is a renowned missiologist, on mission. When he wrote his book, Transforming Mission — again, a renowned Reformed missiologist, but I like to get different comparison and contrast to take note of things. But again, the Great Commission has become at the foremost, at the forefront of the church for quite some time. Even in 2001, an LCMS 2001 synodical convention, resolution 2-01, it was required that a Great Commission final resolve be added to every resolution that remained for consideration in 2001. And here was the resolved: "That all action taken in this resolution shall be used to help carry out the Great Commission, and shall not in any way detract from the primary mission of God's kingdom here on earth." All right, so that was at the 2001 synodical convention. So again, this nature of the Great Commission as the marching orders, or the model for the church, has been at the forefront for quite some time.

But what's fascinating is to take a look at, has it served the church in this capacity throughout history? Even if we look at it in the Scriptures, has it done that? David Bosch there has some interesting things to say. That's a longer quote there, but a couple lines down in there, that first quote there, where it says, "As a matter of fact" — as a matter of fact — "the Great Commission does not function anywhere in the New Testament. It is never referred to or appealed to by the early church. It is therefore quite clear that the early church did not embark on the mission to Jews and Gentiles simply because it had been told to do so. This would place mission in the context of legalism. Mission would then have been depersonalized." Right? So there he gives, again, a recognition that it didn't function that way in the canon itself, all right?

An observation that I was intrigued by. So I kept reading more and looking at further things, and then I was struck by this very stark statement that Bosch made. And it's actually on the third quote there, on the other side, it would be, from recognition of it, where he talks about the danger of making the Great Commission a slogan, all right? He says, "Today, scholars agree that the entire gospel points to these final verses. All the threads woven into the fabric of Matthew from chapter one onward draw together here. All this means that the way the Great Commission has traditionally been utilized in providing a biblical basis for mission has to be challenged, or at least modified. It is inadmissible to lift these words out of Matthew's gospel, as it were, allow them a life of their own, and understand them without any reference to the context in which they first appeared. Where this happens, the Great Commission is easily degraded to a mere slogan, or used as a pretext for what we in advance decided, perhaps unconsciously, it should mean." Okay, so again, a word of caution for us as we take a look at that and recognize it. Always keep it in context. That's the general hermeneutical principle, right? Always keeping it in context.

So the final quote there is a recognition, then, that the Great Commission is there as a gift, that it's not a burden, but it's a promise that God has given us. So he certainly commands and gives a command in there, but he also promises that he's going to give us the ability to do so. And how does he do that? Of course, through his Word. Where the power of God is at work. Again, so being mindful of the nature of the power of God's Word, as well as keeping it in its context.

So, what I took a look at, too, here, is: does this Great Commission function anywhere in the Lutheran Confessions as a mission-mandating text? Now, certainly, we recognize it as a mandating text in terms of the office of the ministry and in baptism, but as a mission-mandating text? And there is no place in the Confessions that I have found yet that uses it as the mandating text that it is being used in our current church culture. Certainly referenced and acknowledged in there, but nowhere is it used in terms of the mission-mandating text, okay?

All right, mindful of time here. So I'm going to briefly take us a look through: how has it been used, and how did we get to this point? So as best as I could find, when did the Great Commission first really become emphasized as the Great Commission? The first one that I found to do that was by the great Baptist missionary, William Carey. Great study to ever take a look at, but he utilized this particular text, Matthew 28:18-20, in his Enquiry into the Obligations of Christians to Use Means for the Conversion of the Heathens, in 1792. So we established that, and again, launched a worldwide mission emphasis to the heathen at the time, on the basis of this text that was called the Great Commission.

Now, from there, it continued to be utilized and recognized, and most certainly picking up steam in what we recognized in as the church growth movement. One of the first pioneers for that, of course, was Donald McGavran, in the recognition of the church growth movement. He had some very good theological things to say and approaches to utilize in first establishing that in the late '60s and early '70s. But then it was co-opted and utilized and continued to be expounded upon, as just the slogan itself. And so then you have The Purpose Driven Church by Rick Warren, and Becoming a Contagious Christian by Bill Hybels.

Again, in no way am I disparaging the zeal to want to reach out to the lost, and proclaim the good news. But my contention is that, as a result of this, I think the church, in some regards, has developed what I'll call an astigmatism. Now, I have corrective contacts and glasses, and part of the vision that can impair you comes from an astigmatism. Some of you may have an astigmatism. My father-in-law, his vocation, one of them, is an eye doctor. He's also my father-in-law, poor guy, but he's also an eye doctor. And so, a great opportunity for me to understand what astigmatism is. Astigmatism is an optical defect where your vision blurs because your eye can't bring an object into sharp, focused image on your retina. This happens either because of an irregular curvature of your cornea or the lens of your eye, all right?

So it's my contention, then, that as a result of this intense focus that has come about on the Great Commission, the North American church is suffering from an astigmatism. All right, that they're continuing to focus, they can't bring into focus, full focus, the mission of the church, because they have an irregular curvature of the eye of the church, the mission, focusing on that, get the message out. Now, again, this is kind of, maybe perhaps, a bold statement to make, or a claim to make, but the evidence, then, that I took a look at has, using the Great Commission as a mandating text for the mission, actually caused some negative results.

And so here's what I found from it: in many respects, the Great Commission has become the material principle of theology for the church, meaning the emphasis has become on obedience to the Great Commission rather than proclamation of the gospel. Okay? And so it's a recognition that maybe perhaps it might be subtle, or some might disagree, but I think I have some evidence that would help demonstrate that coming up here. So therefore, that's my contention, that a blurring of the mission of the church has occurred, all right?

And so then this moves us into the church growth, missional leaders, emergent churches, and declining congregations: which way is up? Right? So as we look around, as we've all heard and recognized, the church is still numerically in decline. And so we're trying to figure out, why is that? What's going on, particularly, when we've had this significant major emphasis on what was considered church growth, all right? And so, recognizing then the church growth desire was to grow the church, there are some questions about, well, what happened then? It promised that if you followed this and did this, you would grow your church, all right?

So what has happened, then? There has been a reaction against the church growth movement by those who were part of the original movement themselves. Disenfranchised evangelicals have now reacted against the church growth movement in some particularly stunning ways, that were perhaps not considered before in terms of the critique they offer. Again, I think these are the final two quotes on that page. I think they're telling. In fact, they're almost angry. They come across as very angry. And again, this is the evangelicals that were, at one time, supporters of the movement.

The first one here is by Alan J. Roxburgh, from his book Missional Leadership. Note that what he says here: "The church in North America, Western Europe, and Australia is in serious decline. In these parts of the world, the church operates in a context of confusion, anxiety, resistance, and loss. Churches in these parts of the world are driven to recapture a lost sense of place and importance in their culture. They are beguiled by an ideology of growth, numbers, and trends. Energy is focused on marketing themselves as providers of religious goods and services to seekers. Yet despite the effort, a great many congregations and denominations continue to lose membership." Okay? That's one critique.

Another is by a perhaps more well-known — Alan Roxburgh is a big proponent of the missional movement — a big proponent of the emergent church movement is Brian McLaren. And he writes a little bit more flippantly, recognizing that, that quote there, take a look at what he has to say there: "Too often in recent years, church leaders have acted as if being sensitive to seekers means sliding into a one-size-fits-all, franchise clone, mimic-the-model mentality. Too often, we exchange one set of rigid, traditional styles and methods and ways of thinking for equally rigid, contemporary ones. Too often, we have acted without sufficient reflection, without thinking deeply about the profound relationship between church and culture, between past and present and future, between our methods and our message, and we have been gimmick-prone, and thoughtlessly, sometimes desperately, pragmatic, without being as innocent as doves and wise as serpents." Okay? That's from Brian McLaren. He is the nominal head of the emergent church.

If you're following the emergent church — again, I'll unpack that just very briefly, momentarily here — and so the recognition, then, that there's a critique of that, the church growth, they're angry at it, because the certainty that they promised the church would grow didn't happen. And so now they wanted to recognize that wasn't working. Now we want to try something different, all right? And so various movements have now developed.

So if you take a look at that, this is my little flow chart, perhaps, of what my diagnosis might be, of recognition. So we started out recognizing modernity. It promised all kinds of things and didn't deliver. And so there was a rejection of that, and then the transition, then going into postmodernity. The correlate, the parallel to that, then, is the church growth believed in the promises of modernity, and developed some of its methodology from that, and it didn't deliver. The emergent church has rejected that, and is now following in line with the postmodern thought and theology. And so where church growth appealed to marketing and recognizing the marketing trends of the culture, the emergent church is certainly not necessarily going away from culture. It's actually embracing the fullness of the culture as part of what it means now to get the message out.

I think they are together coalescing behind now what is becoming missional. The idea of being missional-minded. And so that mantra, again, behind the idea of being missional is obeying the Great Commission. In my book, I chart numerous book after book after book of where that mantra is played out and that recognition is set forward, all right? But again, is there any evidence to say, well, that this is now correcting, giving a corrective to the church? And the reality, again, the evidence that I've drawn is that no, not even now, with this new movement, there's still challenges. The church still remains in decline.

Willow Creek admitted in 2008, and Christianity Today, it came out, that they have gone away from seeker-sensitive services. Why? They found in their own self-study — and I give them great credit for doing this — that they were not producing disciples. Discipleship was missing. And in fact, what had happened is they were actually inundating people to the culture of our culture, rather than to the Word of God. And so they went away from that, all right?

But likewise, there's also some recognition going on, of what's still happening with these movements; again, the church still remains in decline. The emergent church is fragmenting. Now we have two parts of the emergent church. We have the emerging and the emergent, and they're distinct from each other, all right? And they have different leaders that are leading them forward in the recognition of that. And this is the fascinating thing with it. Phyllis Tickle said in her book in 2008, The Great Emergence, she made the prediction that within 30 to 50 years, the majority, if not 60 to 70 percent, of all Christendom would be a part of the emergent church, and not five years after this prediction, the movement is fragmenting already.

With that, then, the missional movement is producing some mixed results. From that, I follow lots of different blogs out there. It's, I guess, an obscure pastime, but some of us like to blog and look at it, but I follow some, not just Lutheran, but lots of missional gurus and what's going on. What are they saying? What are the trends? Fascinating is one article by Mike Breen, who is of the Verge Network. If you know the Verge Network, he is a missional guru. And he said, in one of his articles, was titled "Why the Missional Movement Will Fail." And he wasn't trying to be disparaging about the movement; he was trying to be realistic. And what was his point about why the movement he thought was going to fail? Because there was no discipleship being produced. People were all gung-ho about being missional, but not about making disciples, all right? So it's a great article to read, to check out.

Likewise, a Skye Jethani, an evangelical who is also, perhaps, not as big a missional guru, but one trying to call the evangelical church to task on things. He wrote an article, a fascinating one, "Has the Mission Become Our Idol?" All right, and here's what he has to say. He says, "Many church leaders unknowingly replace the transcendent vitality of a life with God for the ego satisfaction they derive from a life for God." Right? And then he ends on this provocative note: "When we come to believe that our faith is primarily about what we can do for God in the world, it is like throwing gasoline on our fear of insignificance. The resulting fire may be presented to others as a godly ambition, a holy desire to see God's mission advance, the kind of drive evident in the apostle Paul's life. But when these flames are fueled by fear, they reveal none of the peace, joy, or love displayed by Paul and rooted in the Spirit. Instead, the relentless drive to prove our worth can quickly become destructive." All right?

So they're making these observations, about many, even a diagnosis now, by Gordon MacDonald, that there's this actual disorder of sorts within the church, where people burn out from what's called "missionalism." Missionalism, meaning that, again, they're driven so much, they've got to get the mission message out, get the message out, that they all of a sudden deflate and burn out, because they were not receiving and being fed as disciples with the Word.

Again, a recognition — we talked earlier, Dr. Kolb talked earlier about this — the recognition that even with all of this intense effort and desire by the evangelicals to Christianize America, the culture, for the last four decades, America still has its own unique religion, and that's pointed out in Christian Smith's book Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers, where he says it's moralistic therapeutic deism, all right? So again, the challenge still remains for us out there.

And so, by the way, I've done this all by way of diagnostic, or diagnosing what's been going on in the culture, recognizing the trends in our church, and looking at the promises that are being made, and then the challenges that still remain with that. So recognizing this, then, my claim is that the church has to reclaim the practice and place of theology in our story, that when we are evangelizing and telling people, we have to reclaim the place of our theology, our doctrine, in our story.

And I love the way that this guy puts it right here, some of you may know this guy. I think we heard him talking earlier. He says, "Our doctrine is God's living Word, the power of God on the loose, let sinners beware." All right, Dr. Kolb's book, Teaching God's Children His Teaching, a great book to pick up. It's out there. But a wonderful way. I love the way that he puts there, "the power of God on the loose." It's his power. He's given us the privilege of proclaiming it, that law and that gospel. And we recognize that in his power, we can be bold and confident. Because if we are going with other means than God's Word, that is, if we do not let theology, that is God's Word, position culture, then culture will position theology.

And the recognition, if you want to, just as an exercise of taking a look at that, Rob Bell's latest book, all right, What We Talk About When We Talk About God, it is absolutely brilliant, but utterly toxic, all right? It is absolutely beautiful, but completely dangerous. And that is simply to say, he is a genius at using the narrative nature of our culture, but letting culture dictate theology's end. So the way he does that, he begins by trying to create, using Jane Fonda's experience of faith, where he says she felt "a reverence humming within me." And then he calls that "the divine ruach in each of us," all right? And so he continues to go on. He gets some things right, but he gets some things so very wrong, but he does it in such a brilliant and beautiful way, some people will not be able to distinguish that. But what he is doing is he is letting culture position his theology. And those that are in the know, that are recognizing — he is one that is of continuing revelation. That is ultimately what he wants to put forward, that God is not the final normative end, but he is one of continuing revelation, where we can continue to evolve and get to know God.

And one more that I don't have necessarily on here. Fascinating, now, a whole new trend is starting to begin as well. One of the other major emphases going on within the church is always about leaders, right? Having leadership, and you have to have sound, strong leaders. The missional movement — Alan Hirsch is a big one in the missional movement, and so is Lance Ford. Their latest book just came out, late 2012, called Unleader. It is now a revolt against the emphasis, against all this leadership that had previously been going on. Listen to what he says: "When will we recognize where the leadership language and practices of politics and business lead? When will we cease looking to the fallen system of a fallen culture for ideas and methods of operating within the kingdom of the risen Savior? Does Attila the Hun really have something to contribute alongside the words of Jesus and the apostle Paul, Peter, and John? Do Apple founder Steve Jobs and Starbucks guru Howard Schultz have something we are lacking in order to effectively move forward into the kingdom of heaven? Are we so dull of hearing the voices of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit that we need the voices of Wharton, Harvard, and Wall Street? Every which way we turn, a seemingly endless volley of leadership-centric conversation dominates the contemporary evangelical church scene. Most disconcerting is that Jesus himself is not our first choice as our model for leadership." Again, a recognition that a change is occurring, even in this constant emphasis about leadership.

All right, so where do we turn? And I'll need to wrap this up here, recognizing our time. In the midst of our postmodern, narcissistic culture, that is very formative, where we have entertainment, the internet, and everything that continues to create different forms and inform us, where does the church go? Where do we recognize? Well, the text I like to look at is Acts 2:42-47, but particularly verses 42 and 47, that gives, again, the priority of God's Word, and the power of God's Word, as that which is going forward and making disciples. "They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching, and the fellowship, to the breaking of the bread and the prayers" — note the definite article, and for those that are following along in their Greek, "the prayers" — "praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved," all right?

So here we have a basic framework of how they gathered together within the church and their worship: the apostles' teaching, the Word of God; the fellowship, the gathering together; the breaking of bread, the Lord's Supper; and the prayers, those set prayers that were going on. And most particularly, if you follow Acts 1:8 all the way to Acts 8:1, a recognition of there, you can follow along all the increases that are going on within there. And they're recognizing, they're observing, how the number keeps increasing. So my contention, of course, is that they're gathering around — how is the number increasing? Well, these people are situated in the midst of their vocations. And to be sure, family is a place where they start, in the midst of those family vocations. They begin sharing the good news of Christ with those in the midst of their daily vocations, all right?

And here is — this is, I think it's on your handout as well — but this is what I had developed and then used at our congregation as well, the recognition of the wheel that moves the church out into the world, all right? And I think this is more provocative and profound than perhaps any reorganization or restructuring of a church governance or organization principle, but it is that of recognizing the nature of vocation in the midst of our daily lives, where we can share the Word of God with others where we're at. And still celebrate, independent of our gospel sharing, that vocation as a very God-pleasing, wonderful thing that God is doing for service to our neighbor.

So here's how it starts for us, where it begins: with Word and Sacrament, liturgical worship. And we talk about this, we talk about liturgical living. And I know the word "liturgy" for some, and our denomination, has a lot of baggage. Just suspend that for a moment. I'll unpack that in just a moment, all right? Word and Sacrament, liturgical worship. We call it liturgical living. It's a reminder that we gather together around what the first disciples did there. We gather around the Word and Sacrament to be forgiven and freed, to be renewed and refreshed, to be discipled, and then dispersed out into our vocations. Where we live the majority of our daily lives, in the midst of our daily vocations, whereas we serve others in those vocations, independent of our gospel sharing. But as we have opportunity, and with intentionality, in the midst of those vocations, we share the Word of God, because we develop a rapport with people, first in our families, and then in our workplace, and out into our community. We share intentionally the power of God's Word, the good news, that story, that narrative of Jesus Christ, with them.

Now again, I don't have a lot of time to unpack this, but the way I teach this, I teach the "Welcome to Worship" class in our congregation, a recognition, all new members that come in. We begin with an understanding of what is worship, and why do we do that? That's the majority of time where we spend together. And this is the recognition of, again, how we are formed regularly, routinely, over and over again, counter to what's trying to gather our attention in the culture, where the formative processes of entertainment are. And so we look at this back and forth between us and God in the nature of the liturgy, all right?

And by way of a brief introduction to this, we recognize, when we talked about earlier about ritual, all people are witting or unwitting ritualists. Whether you know it or not, you are a ritualist. If I stick my hand out here to Brad, Brad knows what to do; that's a ritual. I did it with my right hand. If I'm in Africa, which I'm going to land in this summer, if I do that with my left hand, does anyone know what that means? Bad news. Why? Yes, it's their unclean hand, because they wipe their rear ends with that hand. In other words, in essence, if you were doing that intentionally, it's giving them the middle finger in our culture. We are ritualists. What do you do in the seventh inning of a Major League baseball game, all right? There's all kinds of rituals that go on in our life. We are ritualists. And so the idea that somehow we don't like the liturgy because it's uncomfortable ritual, well, I don't necessarily think that makes a lot of sense. We have all kinds of rituals in our daily life.

So here's the ritual that goes on, and it's a narrative, the nature of the liturgy. And white people, I think, my suspicion is, white people, perhaps, don't always care for the liturgy; they've simply not been taught it or understand the nature and the narrative that it is. But so when you break it down for them, you recognize that liturgy is divine service. God serves us, we respond. So you look at that: it begins with invocation, we respond with a confession of sins. There's this back and forth. There's this narrative that's going on. There's the absolution, the forgiveness of sins. We offer prayer and praise. We have the Scripture reading, God coming to us; our response, the confession of the creed. We have the sermon, God coming to us, all right, where a proclamation of his Word. There's the offering, and there's the prayers, all right, the Lord's Supper, and there's thanks and praise, and then there's the nature of the blessing.

Again, we recognize, even in our ritual tradition, the power of God's Word, even in blessing. And I know I'm just, I think I'm right about out of time, so I'm wrapping it up here. But think about it: when you go to a ball game, or maybe you have some youth going to a ball game, what's the phrase that your fellow youth might, you might hear them say, as they're going to the game? "Good luck." Do we believe in luck? No. No, we don't believe in luck, but it is a ritual in our culture. And why is that? Well, I think we can, again, reorient them to understand the nature of a more joyful ritual that we talked about earlier, the salutation, all right? "The Lord be with you." "God bless you." Whether they're going in for surgery, or whether they're going in for a game, or whatever it might be, traveling, rather than "good luck," it's "The Lord bless you." "The Lord be with you." Again, ritual, and understanding that, but it's formative, formative where it makes people unabashed about sharing their faith, blessing other people, and sharing with them the good news in the midst of their vocations where they're at on a regular basis, all right?

And so I know I'm at time here. So I do have one more clip, if the gang wants to take a look at it, from Seinfeld. No? You want to watch it? All right, so… let them go those days. All right, so the nature — this is Puddy and Elaine — the nature, again, if we're serious, again, look at, think about it in the terms of their vocation as this exchange goes on. Though it's humorous, it's also a diagnosis about perhaps the culture, but also maybe the church culture, perhaps at that time, all right? So take a look once.

All right. Again, the recognition that in the midst of our vocations, of course, we want to make sure we care if people are going to hell, and we are intentional about sharing the good news in the midst of those vocations, all right? And thank you very much. It's been a wonderful opportunity. Thank you.