Smore Pics

The Becks came to town... Here are some pics of our activities for the weekend...

Pics

Its been a while since I have posted any pictures from recent happenings in Los Angeles... Here are some of the latest...

Whitney and I went to Pebble Beach for our anniversary and to see our family over Easter... We rented a convertible and drove up the PCH all the way from Malibu to Pebble Beach.







I went to Arizona for my friend Ben's Wedding...



While Whitney was in Cancun with her friend Mary...



We've been to many Dodger Games... And sat right behind Matthew McConaughey and his lady for one of the games!





Whitney is still beautiful...



I have been playing slow pitch softball!



Life is good out here in California... Justin and Dawn Beck are coming this evening and we are looking forward to spending some time with our closest friends... I'll post pics of their trip soon...

Blessings...

Tigers Pitching Stats

There is an informative article on the Detroit Tigers pitching at

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080512/SPORTS0104/805120356/1004/SPORTS

Here are some scary statistics... I find quality starts to be most disturbing...


Justin Verlander
2008
W-L IP H ER BB K ERA
1-6 49 51 35 21 30 6.43

2007
4-1 49 44 15 16 36 2.76

2006
5-3 51 46 18 14 27 3.18

Jeremy Bonderman
2008
W-L IP H ER BB K ERA
2-4 45 46 24 29 25 4.80

2007
3-0 53 52 21 12 46 3.57

2006
4-2 53 42 22 13 47 3.74

Nate Robertson
2008
W-L IP H ER BB K ERA
1-4 40.2 52 30 11 31 6.64

2007
3-3 49.2 56 20 12 26 3.62

2006
4-2 46.1 45 18 17 29 3.50

Kenny Rogers
2008
W-L IP H ER BB K ERA
3-3 43.1 53 28 21 22 5.82

2007
3-2 44 45 22 14 25 4.50

2006
6-2 52 47 19 13 27 3.23


The Tigers are last in the majors in ERA and quality starts (three earned runs or fewer over six innings). The best and worst in both categories (not including Sunday's games):


Earned-run average
1. Oakland 3.25
2. Atlanta 3.54
3. Arizona 3.61
4. Cleveland 3.62
5. White Sox 3.66

26. Milwaukee 4.64
27. Colorado 4.66
28. Washington 4.69
29. Pittsburgh 4.98
30. Detroit 5.09

Quality starts
1. Arizona 23
2. Cleveland 22
3. San Diego 22
4. Boston 21
5. White Sox 21

26. Florida 14
27. Pittsburgh 13
28. Colorado 13
29. Dodgers 12
30. Detroit 9

Row 316

Our community at church has captured a vision to shed some light on Skid Row in Los Angeles. Long story short, we will be working to gather and distribute 316 bags of resources for people on Skid Row. The project is called Row 316. If you are interested in filling a bag, getting others to fill bags, or helping distribute bags in July on Skid Row, please let me know. You could also join the facebook group or the myspace group. Here is the advertisement that we made for the project...

Viva La Vida

With the pre order of Coldplay's newest album (Viva La Vida) you can get the title track of the album. There seem to be mixed reviews around SoCal, but I am in, and am in the process of both enjoying and processing the track... You can also buy a new Coldplay track titled Violet Hill on iTunes...

Anyone else heard these songs yet?

Shifting Ecclesial Leadership (Intro)

This essay will begin with three important definitions that will lay the frame for the arguments in the text to follow. The first important definition is that of the modern self. The modern self articulates a reality that one’s personal identity and destiny should be the self-construction of a rational, autonomous individual. The second important definition that will be important for this paper will be that of the post modern self. In remaining cohesive with the definition for the modern self, the post modern self then articulates a reality that happens both in and beyond the self-construction of a rational, autonomous individual. The final framing definition that will be important to lie in moving forward will be that of church. In its most simple form, church is the group of people called out by God. Of all of the Gospel writers, Matthew is the only one who tells of Jesus using a word that we now translate as church, and he only uses the word three times. The word is e˙kklhsi÷a and is a construction of two words, ek (out) and kalew (to call). In its most literal sense, this word is translated as those who are called out. Yet the obvious question remains, called out for what? The church is a group of people, called out by God in order to render the meaning of the drama of redemption in new sociohistorical contexts through its corporate life. Other important definitions will be handled later as these definitions will be more fluid depending upon the lens, modern or post modern, that the words are viewed through.
The church’s story in North America is deeply immersed within the story of modernity. This is problematic for the church in that the majority of North Americans no longer view the world through a modern lens. The spectacles that North Americans now where are of a postmodern bend. Since the church’s role in the world is to render the meaning of the drama of redemption in new sociohistorical contexts through its corporate life, the church’s job is now to properly respond to this earth-shaking shift from modernity to post modernity. Throughout time, people have responded to the vision and action of leaders. Whether it is responding to the leadership of Martin Luther in the Reformation, or the leadership of Martin Luther King Jr. in the civil rights movement, leadership is required for change to happen. This paper will begin by examining the ecclesial leadership of Jesus and Paul. I will then move into arguing that ecclesial leadership needs to begin equipping the church to shift toward a proper balance of orthodoxy and orthopraxy through prioritizing orthokrisis.

Shifting Ecclesial Leadership (Jesus and Paul)

Jesus has been the most influential leader in the history of humanity. No other human has had the impact that Christ has had on the world. His leadership was unique in modernity and continues to be unique in post modernity. However, the church, within either modernity or post modernity, valued different aspects of the leadership of Jesus. As an illustration, the church of modernity looked at Jesus as an orchestra maestro. The one whom stands before the orchestra and instructs the followers exactly what to play, at what time, how loud, and in what count. A scriptural example of Jesus as leader to the modern church would have been the Sermon on the Mount. Matthew 5-7 is filled with straightforward advice on how to act within the world. Jesus’ words were filled with wisdom on what to do, what not to do, who is blessed and who is not. He gives a very specific way to pray, he speaks of light and dark, and gives concise instruction on fasting. All in all, his words as a leader were succinct, to the point, and while they were life altering, they were regularly black and white. On the other hand, the church in the post modern world should view the leader Jesus as the point person for a jazz band. Quoting Eddie Gibbs,

“The jazz band leader is in facilitating creative improvisation by every member of the group… Jazz bands cannot simply be assembled on the spot as a group of strangers able to perform together. Time is required for each player to understand the others’ personalities and style.”


In other words, jazz bands require relationship. Scripturally this type of leadership is seen in Jesus as he functions in relationships with the people that he pursued. He tells them stories that connect the ultimate reality of God to their personal stories. Jesus as this type of leader is encountered as he speaks the Parable of the Shrewd Manager to the Pharisees, or as he tells numerous farming parables to a people whose lives are centered upon farming. His words are relevant to the current cultural context that he is dwelling within. Both modern and postmodern contexts have allowed the church to highlight Jesus as a leader. While the emphasis on different scriptures may be different for the two contexts, overall Jesus’ revolutionary message and leadership create space for influence in either.
While the church within modernity may never admit it, in many ways, the apostle Paul was their “leader” of choice. Much more than that of the life and ministry of Jesus, Paul set forth a relatively rational approach to reality. From the earlier definition of modernity, a rational approach to reality fits well. So as Paul writes letter after letter to communities articulating logical hierarchal ecclesial structures, laying forth rational systematic theologies, and communicating numerous black and white lists of “dos” and “don’ts”, the modern church latched on in agreement. However, the transition into post modernity does not mean the death of Paul as a leader! In fact, there are two clear examples of how post modernity will bring to light a different side of his person. The first side of Paul as leader that will be rediscovered in post modernity is his relational side. People of the postmodern generation do not prefer to live in isolation, and neither did Paul. For example, Paul lived in Ephesus for 27 to 36 months, building relationship networks with people and therefore building the church. The second side of Paul’s leadership that will be better articulated in post modernity will be his passion for different people groups and for diversity. There is increased differentiation and fragmentation in the postmodern world, as there was in the numerous different communities that Paul spent time leading. Unlike the majority of the modern world, the postmodern world celebrates diversity. Paul also celebrated diversity, and this was especially made known in Paul’s letter to Galatia as he wrote that all are one. “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Similar to the leadership of Jesus, the leadership of Paul can handle both modern and post modern contexts.
The leadership gifts of both Jesus and Paul are able to sustain either modern or postmodern contexts. We must not make the “modern” mistake in our shift into post modernity of forgetting the work of modernity. I submit that unlike modernity, post modernity gives humanity the opportunity to better “balance”. Whatever the balance may be, leaders must encourage churches into balance, rather than into extremes. So often modernity became a time for extremes. The time was filled with the divisive “either/or” framework of speech, thought and action. Post modernity is an opportunity to leave behind the division of “either/or”, and emphasize the balance that comes in “both/and” thinking, speech and action. The most important balance for leaders within the church in the culture of post modernity will be the proper balance of orthodoxy and orthopraxy. So often the either/or of modernity led churches to only focus on one or the other. The rest of this paper will argue that the people in North American churches that 21st century ecclesial leaders will be leading, strongly desire a proper balance of both orthodoxy and orthopraxy, which will best be able to happen with an emphasis upon the often missing link between the two, orthokrisis.

Shifting Ecclesial Leadership (Orthodoxy)

Just as the church in modernity may have valued Paul over Jesus, so the church in modernity also valued a proper orthodoxy over a proper orthopraxy. Ortho means “a right sense of” and doxy means “praise”. Literally orthodoxy means a right sense of praise. However, over time, and especially within the movement of the Enlightenment, the definition of orthodoxy has come to deal with a right sense of thought, and has often been used to define one’s thinking as either right or wrong. The either/or nature of orthodoxy fit well within modernity but does not fit well in post modernity. Leadership must become aware of a more balanced understanding of orthodoxy in our current cultural shift. Similar to what we read in the first century church, this balance includes a host of different “orthodoxies” and includes the different orthodoxies at the table of conversation. The next step in equipping leaders will be to encourage this process through a reclaiming of the drama of the gospel.
The first step to coming to a balanced orthodoxy is recapturing the drama of the
Gospel. Van Hoozer quotes Dorothy Sayers in The Drama of Doctrine,

“The gospel is the greatest drama that has ever been staged… A terrifying drama of which God is both the victim and the hero!”


Since the gospel is dramatic, so ought be our orthodoxies that attempt to articulate this gospel. Modernity raped drama from reality, minimizing knowledge, and therefore orthodoxy, to merely information. The modern hope was that scientific progress would lead us to universal agreement through the use of the same reliable methods. Unfortunately this led to universal rationality, which led to propositionalist theology, which was guilty of dedramatizing Scripture. While information, the pursuit of universal agreement and rationality are not bad, to minimize reality to such nonsense is at best bad, and at worst sinful. Leaders must lead the church away from such a narrow understanding of orthodoxy and back into the drama of the story.
What faith seeks to understand is dramatic and needs to be discovered within the context of community. In modernity, it was popular to seek understanding or “orthodoxy” as an individual, often separated from the community. Leadership must encourage the church into a better balance of seeking understanding, and therefore the dramatic in both personal and communal settings. Those whom follow ecclesial leaders should no longer be seen as passive recipients of information, but as co creators of the orthodoxy of drama. This takes imagination, a scary concept for the modern self, especially within the context of community. However, leaders must help this transition of community imagination in order to articulate orthodoxy to happen. But to what end? VanHoozer reminds us that, “the most accurate measure of faith’s understanding (orthodoxy) is how well we participate.” Our measure of orthodoxy then leads us to encourage a proper balance of orthopraxy (right sense of “participation”) with the community’s orthodoxy.

Shifting Ecclesial Leadership (Orthopraxy)

The way that leaders practice their leadership is the first example of proper orthopraxy for our post modern context. Eddie Gibbs writes,

“Decisions will be made in an operational, rather than policy based structure and therefore must be made as close to the operation in progress as possible by those individuals most directly involved. On the other hand, the decisions are made as a community to the network for input by anyone who can make a worthwhile contribution.”


An operational model of leadership is more malleable and therefore better able to organically move within different contexts. A policy-based structure, which was often implemented in modernity, is less efficient and less able to meet the “operational” needs of the community and the world surrounding the community. This sort of a model of leadership is more inclusive not of all, but of all who make a worthwhile contribution to the community. The ecclesial leadership of post modernity will look more to what an individual has contributed to the community, rather than other assets such as socio economic class, knowledge, or power. Also, one will become a leader not by certain seminary credentials or ordination rights, but by contributing (or practicing) within the community. In short, leadership decisions will be made by people who are invested in the community. Leadership in post modernity must embody these necessary elements by flattening structures through operational leadership and through leadership based upon community contribution.
Most, if not all of ecclesial leadership literature for shifting into post modernity puts a strong emphasis on mission. Eddie Gibbs notes,
“In the shift from a being a predominantly church society to one which is unchurched must recognize their need to turn inside out. In other words, the focus of attention will not be on running programs in order to gather the congregation together, but on equipping people to exercise its God entrusted mission to the world.”

He also adds,

“Most churches are overly preoccupied with what happens in the sanctuary and the church hall. The main purpose of church leaders is to organize events and run programs which are attractive, relevant, and sufficiently publicize to draw people on to their turf.”

The bottom line is that a monumental shift has happened. The shift can be summed in movement. The church’s focus cannot be focused inward, but rather outward. Our movement, as Gibbs wrote, must be inside out. With our previous thought of orthodoxy in mind, our community orthodoxy must not be filled with propositional information, but by viewing our right sense of thought (the Bible) as a script that calls for faithful yet creative performance. This is the heart of orthopraxy that leadership must encourage the next generation of Christians, an inside out mission that flows from a faithful, yet creative participation in the redeeming work of the triune God.

Shifting Ecclesial Leadership (Orthokrisis)

The bridge that has been missing in helping orthodoxy and orthopraxy to fall into balance for communities has been the missing emphasis upon orthokrisis. Orthokrisis means a right sense of “judgement”. For our context, the right sense of judgment will pertain to leadership reclaiming a proper balance of orthodoxy and orthopraxy through mission, as mission is a tangible reality that requires such a balance. After reading numerous authors reflecting upon ecclesiology within postmodernity, such as Bolger, Gibbs, VanHoozer, Newbigin, and Guder, I have learned that all of them have a strong focus upon mission and especially upon sending. Apostolos is the Greek word “to send”. The gift of apostleship is directly related with the verb to send. Within the different mini narratives of post modern North America , it will will be key for leaders to equip communities for sending. And this sending, as stated earlier, will require othrokrisis.
Newbigin reminds leaders of orthokrisis and therefore “of sending”, again, to remember the effects of modernity that still exists within our post modern culture.
“The missionary challenge of the church amidst a postmodern, post-Christian West is enormous. The church finds itself sharing the gospel with a culture that, on the one hand, is permeated by the heritage of the Enlightenment and modernity and, on the other hand, by postmodern nihilism and hopelessness.”

So as we send, we must remember that part of post modernity is modernity. Like a tile that is part of a mosaic, so is modernity within the context of post modernity. The heritage is long, and thick and still plays a role in the lives and systems that we participate within today.
Just as modernity is a tile on the mosaic of post modernity, so there are numerous other tiles needing redeeming power of God. This is where a good balance of orthodoxy and orthopraxy will be needed as we move deeper into the 21st century. Orthodoxy and orthopraxy will look different for each of these tiles, and therefore, leaders will have to equip the church with orthokrisis for engaging balance within different mini narratives. While each of these tiles have a story behind why they are a part of the post modern mosaic, not all of the tiles are complete in their story. Indeed, none of us have ever known such a time as this when so many of the stories of the people that surround us are void of the larger narrative of God’s redeeming love. The storylessness of this generation is our opportunity. Leaders must be wise in both knowing (orthodoxy) the different stories of the post modern mosaic and practicing (orthopraxy) within the mini narratives. Orthokrisis is most necessary to do this. A right sense of judgement will allow apostles to proclaim where the light of God is shining on tiles, and may discern and drive out darkness that keeps tiles from fully experiencing the light.

Shifting Ecclesial Leadership (Conclusion)

The leadership of Jesus and Paul transcend beyond time and space. While different portions of their leadership will be prioritized within post modernity, their stories will still engage the next generation of leaders. Modernity often led humanity into extremes. This was no different for leaders leading the church into either the extreme of orthodoxy or orthopraxy. Post modernity is an opportunity to put these two important aspects of life in the Kingdom back into balance. Orthokrisis is the bridge that can help this to happen. The right sense of judgment that will be most helpful in attaining balance between orthodoxy and orthopraxy is through mission. In the end, it is the church’s greatest privilege and responsibility to equip apostles with the meaning of the drama of God’s redemption in new contexts through its corporate life. The is the primary job of leaders in equipping the saints for the shift from modernity into postmodernity.