What does a post traditional church look like?

[Hans Deventer]

This question is a little less than academic. In my local church, we're looking for ways to start a new church, but not as a copy of the old but rather as a new way of being church. Any suggestions are welcomed!

[Craig Laughlin]

Excellent question. We are asking that at my church as well. I think a part of the answer is that it is highly relational. Driscol's Mars Hill talks a lot about how they do community really well.

I also think it will fully embrace culture as wave to be surfed rather than a force to be resisted. - This will mean people who look very different and meetings that look very different will be central to the churches life and DNA. Probably a whole sale abandonment of Evangelical and Traditional religious sub culture.

I have been asking this question of the post moderns in my church. (Mindset more than age)

Great question Hans. I'm going to subscribe to this thread, something I haven't done in a long time.

[Ryan Scott]

I'd think that a post-traditional church would be an ultra-traditional congregation harkening back to the first century ekklesia. A group of diverse people meeting in a home for a meal (including the Lord's Supper), sharing, prayer, and meeting of community needs. Working together to embody a different ethic in a particular community.

[Billy Cox]

I'd think that a post-traditional church would be an ultra-traditional congregation harkening back to the first century ekklesia. A group of diverse people meeting in a home for a meal (including the Lord's Supper), sharing, prayer, and meeting of community needs. Working together to embody a different ethic in a particular community.

I think I'm going to disagree; not that these things are bad, wrong, or ineffective, but tradition tends to focus on 'what' people did at another point in time, without considering 'why' they did it.

The early church did not invent new social venues/systems, but co-opted existing social structures. The twelve didn't set up a tent outside the city but spoke in the synagogues. Paul didn't create a Christianized debate society, he went to the Areopagus.

If you want to be ultra-traditional (a term that is less than helpful, btw), then find out where/when people are already gathering, and go there.

[Rich Schmidt]

You might look into the work of Mike Breen and the folks at http://weare3dm.com and what they have to say about Missional Communities. This model has apparently gotten a lot of traction in post-Christendom parts of the world like England (and now the USA). Some folks on our district are in the beginning stages of implementing this model.

[Ryan Pugh]

You might look into the work of Mike Breen and the folks at http://weare3dm.com and what they have to say about Missional Communities. This model has apparently gotten a lot of traction in post-Christendom parts of the world like England (and now the USA). Some folks on our district are in the beginning stages of implementing this model.

Their website looks so good, I almost don't even care what it says

[Todd Erickson]

Folks like Phyllis Tickle and Len Sweet talk a lot about how we are currently seeing the end of the Modern Church. Sweet especially has been useful about identifying what we're seeing; a true end to Christendom. For the last 200 years or so, various denominations have been using up the last of their political hold on the world, and that's finally ending, leading to a period of what several theologians have referred to as "downward mobility".

There is a running theme that the church must be willing to move underground, to become truly subversive, to become more interested in living out the Kingdom of God (what is in some circles referred to as postmillenialism) than nickles and noses.

Shane Hipps notes that in every occasion in the bible where large numbers of disciples (not christians) were added to the body, it was around an event of healing or some other proof of the presence of Christ in the world. He also notes that while the ability for this still exist in the East, in much of the Western World, especially the U.S., there is an extreme lack of openness to the working of the Spirit except in the ways which we are rationally willing to accept that God will.

Today's Christians are not particularly interested in martyrdom, or downward mobility, or the type of poverty and simplicity practiced by the first methodists, let alone Christians throughout the ages. We talk about imitating Christ, but in practice this is more a matter of belief and where our money goes than how we actually live our lives.

LeClerc talks about this idea of "Orthokardia" (Gregory Clapper) or "orthopathy" (Theodore Runyon) which is about having the right heart, rather than the right action or the right thought. I think that there's something intrinsic to that...lately we struggle between having the right thoughts or action, and also having full churches, and we wind up losing both in the end.

LeClerc ends her book, "Discovering Christian Holiness" by stating that the Holiness Theology should be A. Affectual as well as cognitive and behavioral, that B. It will be existentially relevant, that C. it will be relational and communal, that D. It will be praxis oriented (practical), and E. It will be spiritually relevant, rather than objectively rational...it will welcome and allow the subjective.

It likely doesn't need to be said, but I'll say it in anyway. A truly most-traditional church will take back up the cause of sanctification as a life long optimistic process within the community, rather than a crisis moment decision affecting only the individual.

[Ryan Scott]

I think I'm going to disagree; not that these things are bad, wrong, or ineffective, but tradition tends to focus on 'what' people did at another point in time, without considering 'why' they did it.

The early church did not invent new social venues/systems, but co-opted existing social structures. The twelve didn't set up a tent outside the city but spoke in the synagogues. Paul didn't create a Christianized debate society, he went to the Areopagus.

If you want to be ultra-traditional (a term that is less than helpful, btw), then find out where/when people are already gathering, and go there.

I don't disagree at all. I was merely offering an example. I think ultimately "church" shouldn't be something you do, but something you are. I don't see our current structures reinforcing that idea at all.

[Steven Martinez]

A good question. I think the answer I see is that the post-modern church will not look like anything but will look like everyone. The shift from it to us has been on the horizon through out the dawn of time. Sometimes the people of God grasp it and sometimes they do not. Overall, I look at a God who has used tablets, tabernacles, temples, altars along with shepherds, princes, kings, priest and an occasional donkey to speak the truth of God. I think what we will see is not so much a new structure but a new understanding of the structure. Home churches are nothing new, compassionate ministry is not new, breaking bread together is not new, community is not new. I think, and I hope that what we will see is unity through distinction. To generalize, I think what we will see is a church where the old sanctified saints will continue to have "bible studies" while the younger crowds have "community or small groups" but there will not be demonetization by either group because there will be an embrace of the desire to be united in love and service. This is what I am beginning to see in my church where the ol' Prime Timers class has evolved to be an all inclusive Sunday School that is now filled with a variety of age groups as well as various mental and social economic statuses but is still a very "old school" style Sunday School class. The attitude seems to be it is all good as long as it is of God.
I am becoming more surprised in my time here because I am witnessing that the old understanding that younger people want community to be a tad misleading because it is the younger people who tend to isolate themselves while our older members are constantly going to lunch together, have game nights at each others houses, holiday dinners, service projects and just being loving toward each other. I look back at my grandparents and recall that in their hey day they were gone several nights a week being with their friends. They bowled once a week, had meetings at the lodge, bingo night, dancing (my grandparents were not Nazarenes) and family dinners. I look at my generation (20s -30s) and it seems most of my friends are more interested in tweeting about what they did rather than invite someone else to participate in the actual activity. Is it possible that those of us who are truly living in the post-modern age really do not know about community even though we claim we desire it?

[Ryan Scott]

I think Stew is right. People in their 20's crave the connection and community, but are often afraid of the dependence and vulnerability required of such relationships.

I imagine this will be the challenge of the post-traditional congregation: how to move beyond superficial community to true interdependence.

[Craig Laughlin]

I am becoming more surprised in my time here because I am witnessing that the old understanding that younger people want community to be a tad misleading because it is the younger people who tend to isolate themselves while our older members are constantly going to lunch together, have game nights at each others houses, holiday dinners, service projects and just being loving toward each other. I look back at my grandparents and recall that in their hey day they were gone several nights a week being with their friends. They bowled once a week, had meetings at the lodge, bingo night, dancing (my grandparents were not Nazarenes) and family dinners. I look at my generation (20s -30s) and it seems most of my friends are more interested in tweeting about what they did rather than invite someone else to participate in the actual activity. Is it possible that those of us who are truly living in the post-modern age really do not know about community even though we claim we desire it?

This fits with my experience as well. I often wonder if the reason they crave community is that they do not know how to create it and so are rich in relatively shallow contacts but poor in deep connections to others.

I wonder if the generation that has been brought up in broken homes has not learned how to create soul satisfying connections.

[Carl Hueston]

Seems to me, and this is only an opinion, that with all this "emergent" talk and arguing that the "emergent" people should start their own. I am sorry if "emergent" is the wrong word but it seems to be the most popular. I have experienced dead churches all my life and I understand why people would want to break from it or change it or renew it, or get to the real deal. Seems like there is enough people to make a go of it. Is post traditional a better word or am I way off? I generally stick to the bible as inerrant, but he way alot of traditional churches present it, it seems like they put Jesus in a box that can only be opened by a select few lol. Sometimes it feels like Moses and the Law rather than Jesus and love. I see a real yearning for truth here and other people in the world that I do not see in some of the prisons, er churches I've attended. Just my two cents.

[Rich Schmidt]

Seems to me, and this is only an opinion, that with all this "emergent" talk and arguing that the "emergent" people should start their own.

As Hans said in the first post, they are starting a new church. The question is, what should it look like?

[Hans Deventer]

As Hans said in the first post, they are starting a new church. The question is, what should it look like?

For all clarity, that church will still be Church of the Nazarene.

[Bob Hunter]

I think I'm going to start a post-emergent church and really confuse people.

[Bob Hunter]

It likely doesn't need to be said, but I'll say it in anyway. A truly most-traditional church will take back up the cause of sanctification as a life long optimistic process within the community, rather than a crisis moment decision affecting only the individual.

This is already happening and has been happening for the last 2-3 decades as the COTN has embraced spiritual formation practices. I currently teach spiritual formation for two institutions and I can honestly say it has been a refreshing development. Spiritual formation has become one of the major movements within the protestant Church in recent decades. Christian discipleship can be as simple as reading the Bible and praying which is about as far as some get in their understanding of spirituality. Introducing people to Spiritual formation can help them get beyond merely reading the Bible and praying (which are important) and explore new vistas of God's grace. I think the emphasis the COTN has placed on spiritual formation has moved us away from decisional conversionism and sanctification as a one-time event. I couldn't be happier. We need to be see our lives with God as a journey. I'm pretty indifferent as to where it fits in; most-traditional, post-traditional, post-emergent, etc. I'm just thrilled with the direction we are headed because I think spiritual formation gives us our best chance at producing Christ-like disciples.

[Billy Cox]

I don't disagree at all. I was merely offering an example. I think ultimately "church" shouldn't be something you do, but something you are. I don't see our current structures reinforcing that idea at all.

I think that distinction is lost on most people. My home church has been hammering the 'be the church' drum for a few years now, but all of the 'wins' are about 'doing'. I personally like the ambassador metaphor, but it's hard to build a program and marketing campaign around it.

[Doug Ward]

I am becoming more surprised in my time here because I am witnessing that the old understanding that younger people want community to be a tad misleading because it is the younger people who tend to isolate themselves while our older members are constantly going to lunch together, have game nights at each others houses, holiday dinners, service projects and just being loving toward each other. I look back at my grandparents and recall that in their hey day they were gone several nights a week being with their friends. They bowled once a week, had meetings at the lodge, bingo night, dancing (my grandparents were not Nazarenes) and family dinners. I look at my generation (20s -30s) and it seems most of my friends are more interested in tweeting about what they did rather than invite someone else to participate in the actual activity. Is it possible that those of us who are truly living in the post-modern age really do not know about community even though we claim we desire it?

I wonder how much technology is contributing to this. We isolate ourselves by the radio station we listen to, the news channel we watch, and we even custom make our own listening habits. Could it be that our technology makes us strangers to each other, even while sitting in the same room?

[Doug Ward]

This fits with my experience as well. I often wonder if the reason they crave community is that they do not know how to create it and so are rich in relatively shallow contacts but poor in deep connections to others.

I wonder if the generation that has been brought up in broken homes has not learned how to create soul satisfying connections.

Craig, I think that is too easy of an explanation. There are quite a few intact homes, where everyone hates everybody - they just won't get a divorce. I also know quite a few like mine - who took their own broken experience and vowed not to repeat it. I do think we tend to make shallow contacts - perhaps it is our individualistic culture.

[Craig Laughlin]

Craig, I think that is too easy of an explanation. There are quite a few intact homes, where everyone hates everybody - they just won't get a divorce. I also know quite a few like mine - who took their own broken experience and vowed not to repeat it. I do think we tend to make shallow contacts - perhaps it is our individualistic culture.

I agree. I was using broken homes in a more metaphorical sense that certainly includes a divorce but takes in the whole brokenness or absence of relational skills. I think any single explanation will be in adequate but pretty clearly people are struggling with creating healthy soul satisfying relationship with others. Ultimately, in my opinion, that begins with God, moves to a spouse, family and out from there. It is also a skill that is first and best learned in the home.

You are to be commended for breaking the cycle of brokenness.

[Doug Ward]

I agree. I was using broken homes in a more metaphorical sense that certainly includes a divorce but takes in the whole brokenness or absence of relational skills. I think any single explanation will be in adequate but pretty clearly people are struggling with creating healthy soul satisfying relationship with others. Ultimately, in my opinion, that begins with God, moves to a spouse, family and out from there. It is also a skill that is first and best learned in the home.

You are to be commended for breaking the cycle of brokenness.

Craig, I think we all are breaking the cycle of brokenness, or should be.

[Kyle Borger]

A discussion we are having on staff is what church should look like. We live in an area where smaller churches are the norm. The question we are asking is if we can have a network of small churches within the district. It is very difficult to get critical mass and grow a church with 10 - 12 people. We are looking at a concept that would have trained pastoral staff working with house churches in multiple communities until there are a couple house churches in the area that would support a worship service.

The style and culture would depend on the community much like in the mission field. We would build off a certain amount of tradition and liturgy while being a part of and communicating within the culture. We must have a connection to the past just as the church before has kept us connected generationally to Moses and David and the rest of our ancestors through passover and other events. It is important that the church of today remain connected to the church of the past, but the church must also exist within the community it serves. This way you can have some foundation that provides consistency and expectation while also using the language that community will understand.

[Mike Schutz]

Sweet's well-known illustration of the scaffolding around the cathedral being mistaken for the cathedral, or the analogy that while a skeleton is necessary but it should not be seen, offers us the opportunity to ask some useful questions.

1. Is it possible for us in western culture to imagine Church not as institution?
2. We talk of the organic nature of relationship-building, but have we seen health beyond a certain level of growth without institutional structures?
3. If we think of the post-traditional nature of Church (by which I think I mean post-institutional - recognizing that some level of institution seemed to be necessary for effectiveness in both modernism and Christendom), are we really talking about purposely small and intimate? And are we purposely talking about a level of inefficiency inherent in such a model?
4. Those attempts during Christendom that purposely attempted small and relational (for example, congregational models of governance and/or Anabaptist models of community) were often the response to persecution from not only majority culture but also from other faith communities. Can such a counter-cultural model develop with other motivations, other than protection from prosecution, and/or the belief that other faith communities had become apostate?

[Ryan Scott]

I think that distinction is lost on most people. My home church has been hammering the 'be the church' drum for a few years now, but all of the 'wins' are about 'doing'. I personally like the ambassador metaphor, but it's hard to build a program and marketing campaign around it.

I'm not sure you can make a switch and still have paid staff, a building, and meet in a sanctuary weekly. I don't think a traditional congregation can make the switch without going all the way. If you're worried about programs or marketing, you're barking up the wrong tree.

[Ryan Scott]

Sweet's well-known illustration of the scaffolding around the cathedral being mistaken for the cathedral, or the analogy that while a skeleton is necessary but it should not be seen, offers us the opportunity to ask some useful questions.

1. Is it possible for us in western culture to imagine Church not as institution?
2. We talk of the organic nature of relationship-building, but have we seen health beyond a certain level of growth without institutional structures?
3. If we think of the post-traditional nature of Church (by which I think I mean post-institutional - recognizing that some level of institution seemed to be necessary for effectiveness in both modernism and Christendom), are we really talking about purposely small and intimate? And are we purposely talking about a level of inefficiency inherent in such a model?
4. Those attempts during Christendom that purposely attempted small and relational (for example, congregational models of governance and/or Anabaptist models of community) were often the response to persecution from not only majority culture but also from other faith communities. Can such a counter-cultural model develop with other motivations, other than protection from prosecution, and/or the belief that other faith communities had become apostate?

A couple weeks ago I read "Follow Me to Freedom" a book on leadership by John Perkins and Shane Claiborne. I didn't think the book was all that spectacular, but there were some interesting insights into the development of the "institutional" structure of The Simple Way. They basically didn't put in anything until there was a need for it. They tried going without one leader and doing things by consensus, which seemed to work for oversight, but not for day to day operations - so now they have a leader. They tried to do ministry to addicts by simply letting them move into the house - that went horribly awry, so now they have a separate place and program run by former addicts.

It all seemed a bit counter productive, but it also was an interesting look into how we develop structures. So many groups just copy whatever is familiar without working to develop necessary structures. Of course, you also need good analysis and frequent reassessment to make sure you don't need changes and updates to the structure.

[Billy Cox]

A discussion we are having on staff is what church should look like. We live in an area where smaller churches are the norm. The question we are asking is if we can have a network of small churches within the district. It is very difficult to get critical mass and grow a church with 10 - 12 people. We are looking at a concept that would have trained pastoral staff working with house churches in multiple communities until there are a couple house churches in the area that would support a worship service.

Why not just resource a couple of house churches and see what happens?

The style and culture would depend on the community much like in the mission field. We would build off a certain amount of tradition and liturgy while being a part of and communicating within the culture. We must have a connection to the past just as the church before has kept us connected generationally to Moses and David and the rest of our ancestors through passover and other events. It is important that the church of today remain connected to the church of the past, but the church must also exist within the community it serves. This way you can have some foundation that provides consistency and expectation while also using the language that community will understand.

Which past are we talking about? When Paul interpreted the Gospel in a Gentile context, he stripped out most of the Jewish packaging (circumcision, dietary laws, festivals, etc.), much to the chagrin of James and Co. who accused him of abandoning Moses and David.

Our religious past includes things like pentecostal worship, animal sacrifice, tent revival meetings, and even ethnic cleansing and genocide. When it comes to our past, it seems that we prefer to forget far more than we choose to remember.

[Kevin Rector]

I think that it's a good question Hans, and one that requires a huge amount of discussion and thought. I have many ideas that have popped into my head.

1. A healthy post-traditional church will be balanced. Balance is a key value of health (regardless of the system considered) that is often overlooked. Being intentional about traveling the via media as part of the cultural DNA - looking for moderate positions - etc. These are important ideas.
2. This will lead to a culture that does takes the good wherever they find it. There is little value in the vilification of institutional structures. Those structures naturally develop as groups grow larger - and when they are done for the good of the organization they are healthy and valuable. But this balanced approach will not feel compelled to anything just because "that's what's done".
3. A healthy post-traditional church will be theologically driven. That is, it's purpose, existence, raison d'être will be informed and pushed by theological concerns primarily. The people involved will be pushed to be theologians. It will not all be made easy - wrestling with hard things under the guidance of elders will be encouraged and required.
4. A good post-traditional church will be unique. It will not have to mimic or follow the footsteps of others, even other really cool post-traditionals.
5. A healthy post-traditional church will teach, promote and encourage accountability and submission to authority. These are not popular ideas, but they are fundamental to Christian faith and practice. Closely linked to this will be the proclamation that the individual is not, in fact, the center of the universe. There will be a strong understanding of the sovereignty of God.
6. Finally a good church - regardless of label - will be loving. Love will manifest itself in different ways - but it will be important that love be the guiding factor.

[Ryan Scott]

Which past are we talking about? When Paul interpreted the Gospel in a Gentile context, he stripped out most of the Jewish packaging (circumcision, dietary laws, festivals, etc.), much to the chagrin of James and Co. who accused him of abandoning Moses and David.

That's not really true. It may have been the teachings of the Church for much of her anti-semitic past, but Paul's theology is thoroughly Jewish, with some of the corrections made by Jesus. Paul was struggling with how to fit Gentiles into a messianic Jewish system. We've done a real disservice isolating Christianity from its Jewish context.

[Kyle Borger]

"Why not resource a couple of house churches?" - That would be the first step. If that is all that there is then that is what we would support. If however in a town of 3000 you have 3-4 house churches with a total of 40 - 50 people then you can have them in turn work together to provide resources in ministry that they couldn't do on their own. Many times that means supporting a time of community worship. Their small groups or house churches would continue and hopefully grow, but a community wide effort also has a purpose.

What Past are we talking about? - I'm not sure where you are going with this. Our past is our past. All of it from Genesis to now. A better understanding of that past and our future helps us better understand our relationship with God.

[Eric Buell]

I think that it's a good question Hans, and one that requires a huge amount of discussion and thought. I have many ideas that have popped into my head.

1. A healthy post-traditional church will be balanced. Balance is a key value of health (regardless of the system considered) that is often overlooked. Being intentional about traveling the via media as part of the cultural DNA - looking for moderate positions - etc. These are important ideas.
2. This will lead to a culture that does takes the good wherever they find it. There is little value in the vilification of institutional structures. Those structures naturally develop as groups grow larger - and when they are done for the good of the organization they are healthy and valuable. But this balanced approach will not feel compelled to anything just because "that's what's done".
3. A healthy post-traditional church will be theologically driven. That is, it's purpose, existence, raison d'être will be informed and pushed by theological concerns primarily. The people involved will be pushed to be theologians. It will not all be made easy - wrestling with hard things under the guidance of elders will be encouraged and required.
4. A good post-traditional church will be unique. It will not have to mimic or follow the footsteps of others, even other really cool post-traditionals.
5. A healthy post-traditional church will teach, promote and encourage accountability and submission to authority. These are not popular ideas, but they are fundamental to Christian faith and practice. Closely linked to this will be the proclamation that the individual is not, in fact, the center of the universe. There will be a strong understanding of the sovereignty of God.
6. Finally a good church - regardless of label - will be loving. Love will manifest itself in different ways - but it will be important that love be the guiding factor.

This is a great post. I would add that in addition to being theologically driven that the church should be missiologically driven. I hate to say that it's either/or. But if I did have to say "either/or" then I'd say that missiological understanding and practice will help chart the course for the church. I know many will say that theology is the umbrella under which missiology falls - I'm not so sure. That may be a different thread.

[Billy Cox]

That's not really true. It may have been the teachings of the Church for much of her anti-semitic past, but Paul's theology is thoroughly Jewish...

Apparently Paul's Jewish credentials were not strong enough to prevent a Jewish (Christian?) lynch mob from trying to kill him for discarding Moses and David.

Acts 21:17-28
27 When the seven days were nearly over, some Jews from the province of Asia saw Paul at the temple. They stirred up the whole crowd and seized him, 28 shouting, “Fellow Israelites, help us! This is the man who teaches everyone everywhere against our people and our law and this place. And besides, he has brought Greeks into the temple and defiled this holy place.”

[Billy Cox]

What Past are we talking about? - I'm not sure where you are going with this. Our past is our past. All of it from Genesis to now. A better understanding of that past and our future helps us better understand our relationship with God.

When someone talks about the past or about tradition, they typically have something specific in mind. Whether it's a revivalistic tradition or a rediscovery of sacramental worship or a rosier time when the life of the average Christian revolved around the local church with little or no competition from other sources, there are at least as many conceptions of the church of the past as there are ways of being the church in the present.

[Todd Erickson]

This is a great post. I would add that in addition to being theologically driven that the church should be missiologically driven. I hate to say that it's either/or. But if I did have to say "either/or" then I'd say that missiological understanding and practice will help chart the course for the church. I know many will say that theology is the umbrella under which missiology falls - I'm not so sure. That may be a different thread.

We have a tendency to put things in boxes. Theology over here in this box, missiology over here in this box.

Unfortunately, the Kingdom of God doesn't really fit in any of the boxes...

[Billy Cox]

We have a tendency to put things in boxes. Theology over here in this box, missiology over here in this box.

Unfortunately, the Kingdom of God doesn't really fit in any of the boxes...

I think that is actually rather fortunate.

[John Kennedy]

We have a tendency to put things in boxes. Theology over here in this box, missiology over here in this box.

Unfortunately, the Kingdom of God doesn't really fit in any of the boxes...

I think even the people who bemoan putting things in boxes tend to go ahead and box things anyway. They just have a vision of a different configuration of boxes. It's been my experience that the people who urge me to think 'out of the box' have a box of their own that they'd be quite happy for me to move my thoughts into.

Cynic is another name for a person with a very good memory.

[Eric Buell]

We have a tendency to put things in boxes. Theology over here in this box, missiology over here in this box.

Unfortunately, the Kingdom of God doesn't really fit in any of the boxes...

Great point! I hope I didn't write in such a way as to suggest that a post traditional church is the Kingdom.

[Todd Erickson]

I think that is actually rather fortunate.

Well. Unfortunate for the folks who like boxes, I mean.

[Todd Erickson]

I think even the people who bemoan putting things in boxes tend to go ahead and box things anyway. They just have a vision of a different configuration of boxes. It's been my experience that the people who urge me to think 'out of the box' have a box of their own that they'd be quite happy for me to move my thoughts into.

Cynic is another name for a person with a very good memory.

My brain works in very ontological ways, and I have to fight that constantly.

But as Tim says, we are always better off living in tension...certainly, if we are truly relational, truly communal, truly holy, we will always have to be in tension.

There are too many people for whom "The Kingdom of God" translates as "that place where there's no tension, because everything's as pleases me".

[Gary Condon]

I think I'm going to start a post-emergent church and really confuse people.

I'm starting a society of "unconcerned Nazarenes"

[Ryan Scott]

I'm starting a society of "unconcerned Nazarenes"

Someone beat you to it.

http://unconcernednazarenes.blogspot.com/