Rebel with a Cause?

In an effort to make up for my lazy study habits in seminary I have been reading a lot of late. I just finished "Chapter 0" of "Generous Orthodoxy" by Brian McLaren. McLaren takes an interesting tone as he warns people against reading his book. Perhaps I am reading into his words, but contained in them seemed a certain skepticism of education in favor of things with a practical, concrete value. McLaren is aware of his own lack of a "proper" seminary training but also believes he has something to offer to the theological debate. I agree that formal training is not necessary for one to have a theological opinion. What I want to respond to is the tone that McLaren uses. As I think about things like the "organic church" and "emerging(ent) church" movements, contained within them is a certain almost youthful rebelliousness. Maybe I see it in these movements because I see it also in myself. I do not want to be critical of the efforts and effects these movements have and are having, but I wonder if a certain appeal for them comes from the constant desire of the younger generation to overthrow all the previous generation has valued and strike out on their own. The idea of disregarding the recent past in favor of the distant past is certainly not a new one. My question, as a pastor is what can this tell us about how we do church today. I find the ideas around the emerging church to be alluring. As a 20 something who has constantly walked the line between my faith and my skepticism with the church I understand the desire to strike out in a new direction and try and find God in a place and a way that is meaningful to me. As a pastor perhaps the challenge is really to encourage rebellion so long as it is for a cause. Not just doing things different for the sake of ignoring recent trends and traditions, but instead as a real effort to discover better ways to seek God. So ultimately it seems the challenge is to cultivate a health rebellion for people, that teaches us all to explore what we believe and why

What Salvation do I Preach?

I have a sort of love/hate relationship with "Organic Church", by Neil Cole, which I have been reading for the last week or two. There is a lot I agree with and probably equally much that I disagree with. Some of it simply boils down to a difference in style between the two of us. In one chapter Cole starts off by talking about Schindler's List, and the idea that each of us should be creating a similar list of people we know who are in need of salvation. What really struck me was that Cole was focused on the idea that our fear of death should prompt our efforts for salvation. I do not want to preach a Gospel based on the fear of death, but rather one that rejoices in the beauty of life. I think that Cole gives an excellant example that helps us to see things in terms of all the people who need to be saved. Unfortunately I worry that the Gospel too often gets cast as a way of saving us from Hell, rather an a way that can remake us into better people in this life. Do we follow Christ because of what Christ has to offer us, or because of what we want to offer Christ. If people are introduced to Christ because they need to be saved, this becomes the basis of their faith. I think we should follow Christ out of love, not out of our need. Each of us can think of a time we have been guilty of "sucking up" or similar behavior. Whether it is to a boss, a teacher, or simply someone we respect, we have sought to better our relationship to them in hopes of some sort of gain. On the other hand, think about how we relate to the people we love. We do not think of our relationship in terms of what we get from them, but instead in terms of what we can give. I do not want people to get saved because of what will happen if they don't, I want people to know about God, because God loves them so much, and God wants them to be in a better relationship with God. The purpose of evangelism to me is not to appeal to people's fear of death, but to show them the love of God, and the beauty of life.