All the Power You Need

Why doesn’t the Church—especially in the Western world—see more activity of the Holy Spirit?

One of the things I have discovered in my 20-year trek toward understanding the Spirit and His gifting hit me a couple years ago, and it gave me a new perspective on the issue. One problem we have is that we tend to see spiritual gifts as things. They are possessions I accumulate; for Western Christians, this is the most deadly way of understanding them. Our US worldview, especially, is that the accumulation of things is our goal and lifestyle--responsible use is not. For American Christians to hear about spiritual gifts as things God gives us rather than a challenge to a lifestyle of a completely different order, it often psychologically puts them in the "Optional" or "For Use When Needed" bin in our cluttered minds. You know—the place where great concepts wither and die.

This piecemeal approach is both informed and augmented by our American way of reading 1 Corinthians. We see it as Paul, the problem solver, ticking off his list of things to discuss with the troubled church in Corinth. See a problem, fix a problem. We can relate to that. It fits our superficial, pragmatic worldview.

Several years ago I was doing some Greek work on that book and came upon what I think is the real theme of 1 Corinthians, and it completely re-oriented my view of the book in general and of spiritual gifts in particular. It all revolves around the Greek word "pneumatikos" in some key areas in this book. It unlocks Paul's grand purpose for writing the book, and helps us understand that lifestyle of a completely different order.

First, a definition. "Pneumatikos" almost cannot be translated into English. The best we can do is to say that it speaks of "spiritual stuff," or the realm of reality where spiritual stuff is most active and alive. As you know, context very often must supply the local meaning. However, just looking at the words immediately surrounding a word often is not enough. This word in particular is used in key places in the book, so we are (or should be) forced to harmonize all the uses into a cohesive theme. Only then will we really "get it."

We can all agree that the church in Corinth had a number of presenting issues that reeked of spiritual immaturity. We can also agree that in Paul's other letters he never applied corrective action or teaching without first applying a broader theme of redemption and maturity. He wasn't a help desk guy simply intent on getting things re-booted so he could go on to the next customer.

Paul addresses the immaturity issue in chapter 1 presented to him by the visitors from Corinth. The goal he presents to Corinth is finishing well, which is done through the outworking of the Kingdom of God (1:7-8). He sets up the discussion for the rest of the book, and the grand underlying theme of the book in 1:18 - 3:23. That theme is, "this is what true spirituality/maturity looks like. Come live in it." In the middle chapters he holds up the mirror and lets them see the spiritual anarchy that prevents them from "getting it." That's what the discussions about divisions and competition, an anti-authority spirit, sexual leniency, legal disputes, broken and distracted marriages, "strong" versus "weak," men and women in competition, and nominal religion are about. The middle chapters are illustrations.

Back to the theme. In explicit teaching about spiritual maturity beginning in 2:6, Paul says that real understanding about the way things truly are, and the power to live that way, comes from "...words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths (pneumatikos) in spiritual words (pneumatikos)" (2:13). The concept is so important that Paul uses the word twice.

Only those who live in this realm of pneumatikos, and who are defined by it, can "get it" when God speaks (2:15 -- Literal translation: "...but the spiritual one [pneumatikos] examines all...). Suddenly the word is personified, indicating one whose life is intertwined with and defined by this realm. Paul goes on to say that he could not talk to the Corinthians as "pneumatikos" but had to do it on the flesh level (3:1). Hence, the way he writes the book. Does the way I interpret 1 Corinthians bring a little interpretation into what realm dictates my understanding? Hmmm...

Paul goes on in chapter 9 to remind the readers that his ministry was all about sowing the seeds of the Kingdom and spiritual maturity [pneumatikos]--that was his goal (9:11). He reminds the readers that they really are without excuse, because this was God's goal all along. God even provided examples through Israel's wanderings (10:1-6). They "...ate the same spiritual food [pneumatikos], and all drank the same spiritual drink [pneumatikos], for they were drinking from a spiritual rock [pneumatikos] that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ." Pneumatikos, it seems to me, is the same stuff that is supposed to flow when we are attached to the Vine. It is the lifeblood of the Kingdom, not a component we call "spiritual gifts" that most believers learn to get along without very nicely.

So we get done with the illustrations and Paul returns to his theme in 12:1. "Now concerning spiritual gifts [pneumatikos], I do not want you to be ignorant." Without understanding the flow of Paul's thinking, our next best guess is twofold: First, spiritual gifts were another of the many problems Paul had to dress down the immature Corinthians about (which leads many to the conclusion that it is good to avoid them entirely for fear of excess); Secondly, and equally wrong, that this is a list of things God gives that is almost entirely unconnected from any of the previous teaching.

What Paul is really saying is, "OK, now that I have your attention, let's talk about what living in the realm of mature spirituality looks like." If we can synthesize the earlier teachings and come to this point, then and only then does chapter 13 really fall into place. This is a discussion about what the Spirit-filled lifestyle looks like, and the greatest manifestation of the Spirit of God is love (John 13:34-35; 1 John 4:16). He can then say, "Pursue the love and the spiritual [pneumatikos]... [literal Greek translation]" (14:1).

Incidentally, by using the definite article “the” before the word “love” in 14:1, Paul is speaking of a specific love, e.g. the spiritual gift that is the primary identifier of the “pneumatikos” kind of person. This could lead to an entire volume of discussion in itself, which we won’t do now. But it does beg one important question that is directly related to the “pneumatikos” lifestyle: what does it say about the American Church when most people outside of it would say that we are identified primarily by what (or whom) we are against, rather than the empowered, magnetic essence of God living among and through us?

Paul then finishes the teaching portion of his book by saying, "If anybody thinks he is a prophet or spiritually gifted [pneumatikos--one who walks and lives in the realm of the Kingdom], let him acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord's command..." (14:37).

In closing, Paul encourages the Corinthians to live under the shadow of the resurrection (chapter 15). He continues his theme and weaves it into this encouragement. Whenever the English translations say in 44-46 that there is a "spiritual" whatever, that word is pneumatikos. Paul's point is this: Pneumatikos is what we were destined for. Not only is it what we will experience, it is what we can experience. If that is the case, then learn to recognize it and live in it now. Without this kind of understanding we will continue to view spiritual giftings programmatically, rather than wholistically. Without this kind of understanding the Church at large will never move toward the organic and away from the institutional.

Legacy versus Lethargy

Deciding what’s important is more than making a list. It can be the difference between legacy and lethargy.

Followers of Jesus have some decisions to make as the Church in North America begins its slide into the same chasm of irrelevancy that has haunted her European sister for the last century. Will we shake our fists at the boogeymen of the “culture wars” as our organizations sink from sight, or will we become an irresistible force uniquely able to thrive in this new global environment?

Yes, the stakes are that high.

And yes, the decision is ours; it does not rest in the hands of the Supreme Court, Barack Obama, Angelina Jolie or Joel Osteen. We are the ones who control the destiny of the Church and it is high time we made the right choices.

The single most important decision an individual follower of Jesus can make is to join God in His mission. This may sound like the spiritual warm fuzzies but it really is a destiny-maker. Here is what it looks like and why it is so different from our normal church experience.

Many evangelicals might say that the Great Commission is our greatest calling and priority. The way we have unpacked that since the nineteenth century, however, leaves the average Joe in an institutionalized kind of lethargy: the place of observer and financial supporter so the professionals can git ‘er done. Most of the average local church’s budget and focus rest squarely on Sunday morning services. Most of the “good things” that happen on most Sunday mornings are from services rendered by professionals (or at the least highly skilled volunteers). The Great Commission is also largely “done” by trained professionals in faraway places. They are the players; we are the crowd.

When we cry over the globe, most of us never expect to go to those places and live among the people for whom we weep. And most of us don’t see our immediate surroundings as a mission field demanding our immersion in it. That’s because the Great Commission has largely been professionalized, and therefore, depersonalized. We have become victims of our own success.

Lethargy can evaporate and legacy can begin by embracing a higher purpose. It is found in the ancient Latin words “mission dei,” which simply mean “the mission of God.” God has been on a single-minded mission for a very long time. His plan to win back His lost humanity proves that He would let no obstacle stand in His way. His love for people continues to drive Him. It is that love that can drive us.

Embracing the missio dei forever personalizes my approach to my corner of the world. I can’t help but to be involved. It means that I begin living as a person of influence, touching those around me and developing relationships with greater intentionality. It also means that my relationships are now seen as a direct conduit of God’s love and power to my unsaved friends, neighbors and co-workers. No longer am I a “mule,” trying to convince those same people to come to church so the professionals can take over.

Suddenly the average Joe is important. Influential. Significant. Huge.

We tend to think that only the powerful have influence. The truth is that everyone is a person of influence, and everyone uses his or her influence. Some are more overt and successful than others; most of us exert our influence unconsciously.

Deciding to be a person of conscious influence is not an ego trip. It is just the opposite: when we jump into the swift current of the missio dei we realize how humbling it is and how inadequate we are. There is another benefit to intentional influence: it can lead us away from two legacy-killing dilemmas.

First, because our influence-peddling is small potatoes compared to some, we tend to unconsciously grant ourselves immunity from the responsibility placed on those in positions of influence (as if we were not in the same position). The responsibility is still there; now it becomes a positive motivating factor.

We must recognize the dangers of the second dilemma that undisciplined influence creates. Living in the land of non-intentional priorities tends to insulate us from analyzing and critiquing the end to which we unconsciously pull others. That end, like it or not, is the pragmatic center of our universe. That toward which I draw others is the thing I worship as my god.

Look—as long as we’re here our god might as well be God. Let’s get intentional.

Legacy and lethargy are opposing forces we all face. By choosing to engage God’s relentless love for the people around me I can become a person of eternal influence and give others a glimpse of their own destiny as followers of Jesus. Part of letting the mission dei capture us is the sorting out, clarifying and galvanizing power of a focused influence whose magnetic north is Jesus himself. Nothing else is really worth pointing at.

Re-Visioning "Church"

We began the missional journey knowing that the path we are walking is, for us, largely an uncharted adventure. We committed to discovering and defining the markers along the way that can guide those who follow. Some of those markers were found at the edge of the forest; they were obvious and easy. Some have taken us by surprise. As we round the corner we discover abrupt changes in the landscape: what was expected just isn’t there. We are discovering at some of those turns that our “church common sense,” that body of information and expectations we carry around with us, accumulated through years of church activity, is no longer adequate to help us navigate. In fact, there are times when “proceeding as normal” is the worst thing we can do.

At those times it is helpful to pitch our tent and evaluate our decision-making process before considering our next turn. The following discussion is one of those moments.

We are well into our second year as a missional team in a defined target area in the urban center of Fort Wayne, Indiana. We currently have nine adults who are committed to the team. Every one of us comes from a church background and most have deep ties to three local churches from two denominations.

Our major goals with church people are twofold. First, we must embrace a missional/incarnational theology. That includes the following essential elements:

1. Understanding the concept of the missio dei—that God has always been on a mission to seek, save and redeem. The mission of God dominated the life and teaching of Jesus; and the missio dei calls every follower of Christ that very lifestyle.

2. The essence of missional theology is relationships. Our triune God, the ultimate relational being, expects us to express our theology and communicate His love relationally. Our Western worldview is more propositional, rather than relational, in nature. The missional/incarnational model moves people to see life and ministry through another lens.

3. Our cultural/evangelical application of church ministry has traditionally been centripetal in nature: that is, we have buildings/properties where ministry happens, and church members and seekers are expected to move toward that central point. In this regard we use the term attractional to help define this kind of ministry model. The vast majority of church people are so familiar with this as the only model we know that we rarely stop to ask if there might be other, equally legitimate models.

4. The Scriptures call believers to a set of relationships that are centrifugal in nature: we are sent out to the needy rather than expecting the needy to come to us. Since Jesus calls His followers salt and light, then we strive to invest our lives and resources where those qualities make the most impact.

5. The missio dei calls us to redefine our local context. Where I work, play and live is a mission field and this is where my ministry must begin.

The second major goal is related to the first, but more clearly defines how I relate to my world as a person of mission. This is one of those unexpected turns along the way. We never anticipated how challenging the adoption of these values is, and how the whole missional process hangs on moving from what we have known to what our times demand.

In essence, the second goal is the gateway through which people from church backgrounds can find permission and freedom to live in a manner that brings power to the concepts embedded in the first goal. The first goal is essential in orienting our thinking. The second goal moves those concepts into everyday experience.

Our second goal is currently coming into focus. As it becomes clarified, we are discovering the many familiar layers of expectation and assumptions that must be addressed if missional teams are to truly flourish. Here it is in a nutshell: missional people must decide how to redefine “Church.” The implications for this definition are staggering. We shall make some brief comments for the benefit of individuals stepping out into mission and for church leaders contemplating how to empower them.

The three major themes we will explore as we begin to re-vision our understanding of Church are Inside or Outside, Feed or Fed, and Parent or Guardian.

Inside or Outside

We have a missional teammate sharing our house. She has a cat. The cat goes mostly unnoticed, but there are times that it becomes maddening. One of those times is when she yowls at the door to go outside. I will open the door to let the cat out and then the drama begins. The cat rarely shoots out the door as expected—most often she will hesitate; looking out at freedom, then looking at me, the impatient doorkeeper. Should I try to coax the cat out, or move in her direction, she skitters away. I shut the door in disgust and the cat stays inside.

How many times have we stood at the door, hesitating to go outside? This doesn’t automatically imply that we all operate out of fear, and therefore we choose disobedience over possible hardship. Very often we are like that cat: the doorkeeper seemingly bidding us to go outside doesn’t look all that believable.

Our centripetal church model has subtly convinced us that attendance at meetings, and involvement in building-based activities, are some of the significant indicators of spiritual maturity. From which pool of candidates do we choose when considering members for church leadership? One common denominator is those persons’ level of involvement and attendance at centripetal functions.

Meanwhile, preachers and teachers expound the virtues of the Great Commission and offer tips on evangelism. All the while we are locked in the middle of two equal and opposite magnetic pulls: be more involved in the church ministry and its programs; go out and reach your neighbors. We find friendship and support from fellow believers in our church culture; the more we are involved the more isolated we are from impacting our unsaved friends and neighbors (unless they accept our offer to attend church, which all the major cultural trends definitively state that this is rapidly losing effect in our world). Yet we hear the message of God’s heart. We stand at the door, frozen in indecision.

This indecision has implications for individuals and church leaders. For the individual, accepting the concepts surrounding missio dei but not significantly acting upon them leave missional teams in frustration and futility. Individuals contemplating their participation on a missional team must evaluate their level of involvement in the traditional church organization. In a real sense, for missional teams to flourish, there has to be a break for the door. “Insiders” must choose to become “outsiders.”

People moving into the missional lifestyle who remain “insiders” will continue to see their local church as their source of fellowship and fulfillment when it comes to feeding and worship. They will also tend to default to paid professionals to do the heavy lifting in ministry. Consider the possibility that the two most common defining activities of the traditional church are preaching/teaching and worship on Sunday mornings. If this is true, then the average believer must default to a passive experience in a professionally-led environment. What this leaves for a missional team are individuals who attend meetings, but who do not dive headlong into relationships with fellow team members beyond what church-based small groups traditionally provide. They are too busy; their loyalties are divided. And as long as their feeding and worship experience is provided for them, whatever happens in the team setting is icing on the spiritual cake.

As we all know, icing is optional.

Church leaders who truly desire to see their members blossom in a missional environment must evaluate whether teachings from the pulpit coupled with subtle pressure to “go to church” actually create a dissonance that leaves their followers camped in the valley of indecision. What can be done—what must be done—by local church leadership to free people to head out into the great unknown?

One radical (but we deem biblical) turning point is to promote the Great Commission in the individual’s sphere of influence as our destiny and defining activity. This kind of dynamic is truly what should define the Church. As long as corporate worship and the preaching/teaching of the Word are promoted (however subtly) as the central, defining activities of the Church, regular members will continue to treat the Great Commission casually.

What might happen in local neighborhoods if believers, empowered and encouraged by their fellowships, were able to invest themselves fully in a centrifugal lifestyle?

Feed or Fed

Our second theme follows closely on the previous point. One problem the Western Church faces in this era is that we have become victims of our own success. Teaching in local churches is enhanced (and often eclipsed) by supplemental purveyors of truth on TV, in print and through podcasts. All I have to do is open my ears and let the stream fill my brain.

Let’s go on record right now: listening to Bible teaching is not wrong, sinful or misguided. It is simply not enough. We will go on record as saying that receiving teaching was never God’s intention as our primary source of knowing Him and His Word. We must become self-feeding followers of Jesus who gather together out of fullness rather than emptiness.

Missional teams strive to promote the practice of self-feeding. This has three distinct advantages when one is attempting to establish a missional lifestyle: self-feeding untethers the believer, it enhances team dynamics, and it personalizes the priesthood.

Self-feeding as the primary source of one’s spiritual nutrition allows the follower of Jesus to begin the untethering process. Those who grew up standing in their boat tied to the dock sharing fishing stories with all the other boaters tied to their docks can gain confidence that the boats were really designed to push away from shore and head for open waters. Self-feeding starts the process of confidence-building for the great adventure outside the safe harbor.

Self-feeding enhances team dynamics by developing a model of gathering together where everyone has something to share, which is what builds the Church (1 Corinthians 14:26). This separates missional gatherings from our traditional home Bible study format and gives organic life more fertile soil in which to grow.

Self-feeding also personalizes the priesthood of the everyday follower of Jesus. Taking responsibility to feed oneself, coupled with an expectation that God may give that same person something to share when the group gathers, makes the individual much more likely to leave the bleachers and move down to the field.

What can local church leaders do to help encourage self-feeding and thereby give their missional folks a reasonable opportunity to thrive in the new atmosphere? Offering more Sunday School classes on how to study the Bible may actually perpetuate the dissonance and keep potential movers idling at the door. This is an issue that must be discussed and debated. The Baby Boom generation, of which I am part, cut our spiritual teeth on the church growth principles that for many made teaching the Word an end in itself. This has some significant implications for those in professional ministry whose gifting and calling have them staying within organized fellowships. This might mean discovering a new persona for those whose primary responsibility and identity has been behind the pulpit.

Parent or Guardian

The final theme in our quest to re-vision Church more explicitly guides the professional. How can an organization affect significant change if those guiding it remain the same? What this missional impulse needs from the inside-out are pastors and leaders who choose to lead their congregants as parents rather than guardians.

My mother-in-law once told me that her goal as a parent was to raise her kids so that, when they were 18, they were ready, willing and able to move out on their own. No responsible pastor would intentionally raise a generation of spiritually jobless 35-year-olds who still live with their parents. As we have already stated, our collective skill with worship and the Word may actually be encouraging many in our congregations to never strike out on their own because Mom and Dad continue to provide everything they need.

Moses speaks of this in Genesis 2 when he reminds newlyweds to leave their parents and cling to each other. Embedded in the notion of leaving are parents who “get it” and allow and encourage their children to act like adults. This works best when parents initiate a new order of relationship with their kids as friends and peers.

Perhaps the converse of that image is that of a guardian who hovers over the child, dictating (or strongly suggesting) what would be best.

Our best scenario would find church leaders and missional members meeting in a new middle ground. Each gives back to the larger group. Each sees the other with new eyes. Each does his or her part to make the missio dei a reality. Then all, including a previously unpenetrated surrounding community, benefit.

Our enemy would like nothing better than division and alienation amongst the followers of Jesus. Without a strong and clear emphasis on the missio dei, the traditional Church in North America will continue its slow but steady decline. And without the backing of church leaders, missionally-repurposed believers will never enjoy the impact they desire.

We need each other.

More importantly, our world needs the Church in action.