A Story's Stalling Point

I’ve been doing a lot of thinking over the past few months. I honestly can’t tell you exactly what’s on my mind just that something is missing. I don’t feel directionless; in fact I have a direction, ambition, and goals I hope to obtain. I know where I want to go, just not sure how to get there. Not sure what horizon I want to set my nose towards and go.


I have read and reread Don Miller’s A Million Miles in a Thousand Years these past few days. I have come to the conclusion that it is easier for a single person to create a story and live it without much of a problem (aside from being lazy) but for a person with a family it is a little more difficult because your story is not the only one being told. There are at least three stories taking place in a married person’s life: 1) their own 2) their spouse’s 3) theirs as a family; three stories with two being told individually and those two stories coming together as one story. Add in children and then you have four or more stories taking place at once.

My struggle at this point is trying to figure out how my story, Lacy’s story, and our story as a family (Connor is not at the story telling age yet) exist as one. When it was just the two of us, it was easy to do but Connor adds a different variable in the equation. No longer do our individual stories concern ourselves but they concern another individual. Lacy has found a new ambition for herself. She’s decided to go to Graduate School. She has applied and we are waiting on things to be finalized before making an announcement but she finally has an ambition, goal, story of her own to tell. For me, I’m in the lull between stories. I completed my epic story this past May by earning a Masters of Divinity from the Baptist Theological Seminary in Richmond. Now, I feel as though I am floating, looking for the next story to dive into while Lacy prepares to dive head first into her own.

Please understand what I am writing. I’m not writing negatively about the three stories taking place. The third story (our story as a family) has always come together and weaved in and out of our individual stories. I am not advocating for one joint either. Lacy and I are individuals who live and exist as a couple. Connor lives as an individual but exists as a part of our family. Our family functions together while functioning separately. We each lead separate lives but our lives our lived together. We tell separate stories but our stories are told together.

As I think about my story and my place in Lacy’s new story I am finding myself resting in the presence of God. It’s a weird feeling because I feel content. I feel anxious about a few things because there are smaller stories taking place within the church. I spent the past four years building up and tearing down my faith to only rebuild it stronger, wiser, and with more grace. Seminary was my story in which I suffered by seeking after God’s vision, God’s call and my place in this world (cue Michael W. Smith). I am not at that place where I desire or need God to give me a vision. I do not need another story to keep me going but I am at that place where I am getting restless waiting for another epic story to begin.

Who is my Neighbor?

Who Is My Neighbor? from joe kendrick on Vimeo.

Formative Discipline

Last night Lacy and I were talking (as we normally have done the past year) on how we were going to raise Connor. We've covered topics such as television shows, movies, books, schools, sports, extracurricular activities, Santa, Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny, Christmas, etc. I think you get the point. Oops left one out, discipline. We're not a 100% sure how we're going to discipline but we have agreed of its importance. Now, if you know then you're probably thinking, "Joe and discipline...what?" One of my weaknesses, when I get the ol' job review, is discipline. It's the case these days as it once was mainly because the youth attend the contemporary service or just show up to Sunday School. But I have been told on the occasion that I need to up my disciplining of the youth. Of course, disciplining other people's children is a little different than disciplining your own child or is it?

It is if discipline is about punishment or response to a bad behavior. That is one part of the definition and when one steps out of line discipline brings the back in but discipline is more than just a spanking or time out. In fact, most "corporal" disciplinary actions don't really work in the long run. Though the child may learn not to do something, they learn not to do it because of the punishment. As they reach adulthood, they are unable to really distinguish the difference between right and wrong without the result being a punishment. Now the truth is, we only know what is right and wrong when we do one or the other and we are either rewarded or disciplined. Still, there's more to discipline than just a spanking.

I remember being an exploratory child growing up. I wandered off (still do) without telling someone where I'm going. I climbed on things, broke things (once broke a mannequin at Dillard's because I thought Cobra was attacking) and said the occasional "bad word." I might have driven my parents a little nuts here and there, especially when my brother came along. I write all that to say that I've had my fair share of disciplinary issues. I have had my backside paddled more times than Kevin Bacon in Animal House (that didn't sound right). I do remember the reason for my puddling's were always explained or I figured out what I did wrong. Calling a football player an a-hole when your six is reason enough to get a paddling. But I think I understood discipline as something else than just getting into trouble. I knew when I got into trouble and didn't need discipline to tell me I had done something wrong. I needed discipline to do something right.

I started working out at a gym recently. I have sort of let myself go, though you can't really tell. Lacy likes to say that I look healthy but to my standards I have let myself go. So, I joined a gym and I have been going 4 days a week for two hours each day. Every time I 'm there I keep thinking about the verse in the letter to the Corinthians, "Do you not know that in a race the runners all compete, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win it. Athletes exercise self-control in all things; they do it to receive a perishable garland, but we an imperishable one. So I do not run aimlessly, nor do I box as though beating the air; no, I punish my body and make it my slave so that after I proclaiming to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize." Afterwards I think, "I'm not sure Paul meant literally." Okay that was funnier in my head.

I have loved that verse since I was a teenager. Anytime Paul writes about running or running appears in the Bible I feel like I am the only superior enough to understand what Paul or the writer of Hebrews meant *(note the sarcasm). There's a better example than Paul's defensive rant of his authority and apostleship but I like the verse so I went with it to make a point. As Christians we know what discipline should look like and what discipline should be about. We know that if the Israelites had been disciplined in their faith they wouldn't have wandered the desert for 40 years. We know that Jesus was extremely disciplined in order to fast in the wilderness and resist the devil's temptations. We know that Paul and other Apostles strongly encouraged discipline so that we may not lose the race. We know because we've read it over and over again.

Discipline forms our minds, our hearts, our lives. Discipline transforms us into who God is creating us to be. We cannot escape discipline. When we give up, when lack discipline, we begin to fall into the temptations that I mentioned in my very first post two months ago. The church and its people lack discipline because we can go from one church to another when we get tired of dealing with certain people, the pastor, or we just don't like the music. Discipline teaches the church to work through and with the issues that face it. Discipline teaches us to not quit when we face a daunting task. Our children and youth lack discipline because parents lack the discipline in their own lives.

Allow me to be very basic here. When we choose to hit the snooze alarm on Sunday mornings and stay home because we're tired, we lack discipline and we do not teach our children the discipline to go to worship. When we choose to say, "kids will be kids" but do not offer up loving discipline, we teach them that we don't care. When we lack the ability to discipline our children in a way that teaches them a better way of living, we also lack the ability to discipline ourselves.

I am confident that there is a better way to put this but I will figure that out tomorrow. I'm lacking the discipline to try and be understood. Again, with the bad jokes

Intergenerational Narratives: Worship part 1

What does it mean to be in the world but not of this world? The previous post tells us how the five-act narrative might help, though not very specifically. What if we were to examine the church’s worship and church polity through the lens of the five-act narrative? Would our ministries change? Would our worship change? Would our bylaws and church constitutions change? Perhaps but it will take cultivating a community that embodies what it means to live in act-four. What does it mean then to live in act-four? Let’s examine that question through our worship practice.

First, we need to examine our definition of worship. What is worship? Well, that is a loaded question. Some may define worship as an experience. The individual meets with other individuals to have their faith renewed and seek to experience God through music, drama, and preaching. This definition highlights the individual experience of worship. The components of worship revolve around the individual. The focus is on ourselves; our feelings, responses, actions, surroundings, likes, and dislikes. The worship experience in a worship service is regulated to a time much like when we take our vehicles to the auto shop for an oil change. This definition of worship as an experience is about us. We become the focus of the worship, though we do not realize that we’ve become the focus. The songs we sing that are subjective, using personal pronouns such as “I, me, mine, my” turn the focus of worship inward as it becomes about my relationship with Jesus; my worship experience and meeting with God, my time to be rejuvenated for the work week.

An analogy of worship often used is that worship is drama. Soren Kierkegaard suggested that worship is a dramatic action. The principal actors in the drama of corporate worship are the people of the congregation who are prompted and aided for their role by the leaders of worship (Sing with Understanding, p.249). With this analogy God is the beneficiary of the worship. God hears and accepts the prayers and praises of the congregation. God looks in the hearts and lives of the people, discerning the motives behind their worship and their service. The three-act narrative works well with this analogy because God has accomplished what God has wanted and now sits in the audience watching, judging as we perform. Kierkegaard’s metaphor is not entirely bad; however, it does lift up the experience of worship. It does so because we begin to ask, “How do we know God found our worship service to be pleasing this morning?” “Did I sing loud enough?” “Did I raise my hands high enough?” These are silly questions but the drama metaphor raises them because we want to do what is right before God and our human desire seeks affirmation from God and that affirmation is translated (traditionally) through our experience. Responses such as: “I feel lifted and good after singing this morning.” “The service was spot on today because I felt the spirit of God moving inside me and through others because hands were raised, amens were shouted, and everyone got a standing ovation.” result from the drama metaphor as it exists in the three-act narrative. In this framework, our need to have reassurance of our personal salvation is the primary desired outcome of worship, “I feel that God still loves me because of how worship felt this morning.”

Since the focus is the individual, our ministries become focused on reaching the individuals. Thus we create worship services, ministries, studies, or other gathering times around the individuals. In this model, a twenty-something who attends a very traditional worship service may look around and say, “I do not feel that I am getting to worship God. I do not feel close to God in this service. The music does nothing for me. The traditional sermon does nothing for me. Plus, there’s no one younger than 60 in this service.” In turn, they will approach a church staff member and begin to lobby for a service that is aimed at a younger crowd. The music will be modern music with a full band, videos will be used, and sermons will be called conversations. In essence, the individual will seek to create a worship experience better suited for her own personal experience.

Our contemporary services are a result of a three-act narrative, as is staying in a traditional model, the motives behind each focus on the individual. A contemporary service will focus on the 18-40 year olds while the traditional service will focus on the 50-90 year olds. Each service will be tailored to those attending in order to attract their like audience. This affects the church’s ministries because the service will lead to creating new ministries that emphasize the individual’s need. A single will want to be around other singles, married folks will want to be around other married folk (as long as they are in the same place in their life as they are), senior adults will want to be around other senior adults, etc. The individual focus of worship and the resulting ministries are a result of a three-act narrative that creates separation. Children’s church is a result of separation, we target families but do not want the parents distracted during worship so we create a time just for children, after all, they won’t understand the sermon anyways. Particular styles of worship are tailored to meet the expectations of particular demographic groups, especially generation cohorts (Church of all Ages, p.xiv).

Kierkegaard’s metaphor is not entirely out of place. In the five-act narrative, the drama metaphor creates what some define it as an event. Robert Webber writes, “Worship is the action that brings the Christ event into the experience of the community gathered in the name of Jesus” (Worship Old and New, p.67). It is the event in which a set of circumstances, actions and interactions that occur in a particular time and place and with a particular group of gathered participants (CA, p.xii). In the event the point is not the experience, the event stands on its own and the experience becomes something else. One does have an experience at an event but that experience is shared communally with those who are also experiencing the same event.

A few months ago I attended a U2 concert with a friend. As U2 took the stage and began to play, I realized that I wasn’t just at a concert I was at an event. Everyone around me was partaking in the event. They were singing along with Bono, they clapped to the beat of the drummer, and they cheered as their favorite song was sung by the thousands in attendance. But the event did not end when the concert ended. Goers continued the event as they left, singing the songs they just heard, talking about the experience as a whole. The conversation was not about them as individuals but as a collective group of U2 fans. U2 themselves sought to create an event that bridged the goers to others who were not there, dedicating a song to a Burmese freedom fighter and everyone singing for this individual. The event was a gathering of young and old and no one was separated, they were united in the present event.

The experience of the event is spiritually, communally, and ethically, formative. But the experience of the event is not the point. The point is to “royally waste our time in the presence of the living God” (CA, p xiii). I like the idea of royally wasting our time in the presence of God. The point then is not the experience of wasting time or the encounter with God but rather it is the act of wasting time. The story that comes to mind that best exemplifies this idea is the story of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch.

The spirit of the Lord told Philip to walk the desert road. Philip begins walking out into the wilderness and comes across the eunuch reading a text from Isaiah. The spirit of the Lord tells Philip to go over there and Philip runs to the chariot. Conversation begins to take place between them and the eunuch is baptized in a nearby river. The point of the event is not the baptismal experience of the eunuch or Philip’s message. The event itself was the point, not the outcome of the event. Philip’s act of walking and the eunuch’s act of reading and asking questions lead to the experience of the baptism but it is the event that truly matters.

Worship as an event opens up Kierkegaard’s drama metaphor, especially in our five-act narrative. Our worship services become gatherings in which the communal experience is highlighted solely by the act of being together and wasting our time in the presence of God. The five-act narrative expands our understanding of worship as an event and encourages including all generations in the narrative event of worship because we understand that intergenerational worship is a part of the Christian narrative.

Intergenerational worship is worship in which people of every age are understood to be equally important (CA, p.11). This definition helps us understand what we mean we say intergenerational. We understand that intergenerational is gathering everyone of every age and regarding each with equal importance; although at this moment we are talking specifically about worship, it is the same definition I will use when I refer to intergenerational gatherings. Each generation has the same significance before God and in worshiping congregations (CA, p.11). We seek engage each family, each generation communally through our worship practices and the five-act narrative helps us to do so. In my next post, I will explore the Scriptural practices of intergenerational worship/gatherings and further explore what it means to be a part of the five-act narrative drama and the importance of intergenerational gatherings.

Not of this World

What does it mean for a Christian to be in the world but not of the world? The response is complicated because it has to balance the fine line between isolation and being invisible. In my previous post I identified three temptations that the church faces each day. I wrote how living in a three-act narrative strengthens those temptations and hides them in the life of the church. The second temptation read, “(The church) assumes that because the sacred community is the key location of theology, because God’s principal way of working in the world is through the church, then God has no purpose for the rest of God’s creation.” The result of this temptation is to become isolated from the world, cut off. A story Dr. Jim Somerville tells will help clarify this temptation.

Jim and his family were at the beach on vacation one summer and he and his daughter decided to build a sandcastle. They worked all day on the sand castle, building the outer walls and the inner buildings. Enjoying themselves so much they lost track of time until the tide reminded them. The tide began to roll in and brush up against the outer walls of the castle. Jim’s daughter stood up and began to shout at the water, “Stay back! You better stay out of my castle!” Jim eventually stood up and joined her. Together they stood in front of their castle shouting, “Stay back! Stay out of our castle!” Eventually though the tide broke through the outer walls and reached the castle. When that happened, Jim says that his daughter looked at him and him at her and asked, “Want to go swimming?” So, they threw up their arms and ran into the water, splashing and laughing all the way in.

Jim tells a wonderful story and it is a great memory with his daughter; but it illustrates the temptation above. We forget about the world when isolate ourselves. We forget about the church when try to make the world the church, the church becomes invisible. Thus the dilemma is walking that fine line between invisibility and isolation. The question is how do we walk the line?

The three-act narrative drama (fall, salvation, death) tends to blur the line between isolation and invisibility that the church becomes a part of the world or so separated from the world that we do not see the world as a gift. Our view of the line may become clearer if we start to understand the Christian story as a five-act drama (creation, Israel, Jesus, the church, and the eschaton). We then understand that the first act of creation tells the story of God forming the earth, act-two carries on the first act, God remains faithful to creation and to the people by establishing a covenant with Israel, act-three is the definitive act, God’s character is revealed through Jesus, act-four is inaugurated by Jesus when he ascends to heaven and the church is given everything it needs to continue participating in the story, act-five is the end, the thing that has yet to come, the ushering in of the kingdom of God. With this five-act narrative drama we see what our role in the drama is. We understand that the church is continuation of God’s faithfulness and active role in creation. We understand through the five-act narrative that God uses all of creation for God’s divine purpose as God did when Israel was in exile and God used Cyrus (non-Israelite) to bring them out. We understand that God uses all of creation for God’s divine purpose when read of Peter and Cornelius or Paul and the slave girl. The five-act model allows for our participation in the story and it helps us walk the line with a little more ease.

Again, what does it mean to be in the world but not of this world? Above tells us how the five-act narrative might help, though not very specifically. What if we were to examine the church’s worship and church polity through the lens of the five-act narrative? Would our ministries change? Would our worship change? Would our bylaws and church constitutions change? Perhaps but it will take cultivating a community that embodies what it means to live in act-four. What does it mean then to live in act-four?

Living in act-four is difficult to describe because I am not sure what that fully entails. The scriptures are not very clear in terms of exact definitions of how to live in act-four. Paul, for the most part, describes ways in which the church can see themselves in act-four, a part of the world but not in the world. In his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul gives the church an idea of what being the church means. Throughout his letter Paul writes consistently defining the church as a separate, different place than the structures of the world. Believers are not to sue one another in a court. Believers are not to overindulge in food and wine. Believers are not to be puffed up in knowledge but built up in love. Paul’s letters in the New Testament have provided some structure for the church to understand how to live in act-four. However, like many instructions, they become our sand castles and we hold to them and not allow room for movement within.

Jesus helps us to understand what it means to live in act-four with his “You’ve heard it said, but I say” passages. “You’ve heard it said, ‘an eye for an eye’ but I say turn the other cheek.” “You have heard it said, ‘love your neighbor and hate your enemy’ but I say, love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you.” Being in the world means to engage the world through the practices of the church which are the practices of Christ. We are to seek to live within the world, engage the world, and be in the world but not to be of this world. The words and life of Christ helps us to know exactly what that means. We are not to live as one who has not encountered Christ.

One of my favorite “You’ve heard it said” passages is from Matthew 5:38-42, “You have heard it said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; and if anyone wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloaks as well; and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. Give to everyone who begs from you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you.” Jesus takes an old scripture passage and turns it on its head. He creates an example of what it means to be in the world but not of the world. The world’s response to one who hits you is to either walk away or to hit back. Jesus says to do something different. We’re told how to engage the world’s understanding on issues of violence, retaliation, oaths, enemies, and anger as one who is not of this world.

The question is, can we? Can we truly engage the world and live fully into act-four without becoming a part of the world? I think we can. I think we’ve been limited to answer questions with either a yes, a no, or a maybe. I think we’ve forgotten that when Jesus was posed the question, “Who sinned, this man or his parents?” Jesus doesn’t give the normal response, “This man is blind so that you might see.” I was re-reading John Howard Yoder’s What Would You Do earlier this week and I was reminded of several stories of people who live in the world but their actions tell us they are not of this world.

My favorite story is the one about an American missionary in China during World War II. Morgan, the missionary, stays behind at an American university that is abandon as the Japanese begin to occupy the Chinese village. Morgan notices the covetous glances from the Japanese officers. Eventually, they came and demanded the keys from Morgan. Morgan politely refused explaining that the property belonged to the American mission boards and that he was not at liberty to hand it over to anyone else. After an hour or so of debate, the soldiers would return to the village without the keys. Tensions between Morgan and the Japanese grew when soldiers appeared at the gates, demanded that Morgan turn of the keys to them or be shot. The world’s response would be to either turn the keys over and live or stand and fight. Morgan does neither. He speaks to them with love and kindness and urges them to understand that he has no hate for them and believes them to be his brothers and will do anything they ask except when it’s something wrong. Eventually, the soldiers lower the weapons and the turmoil seems to have subsided, except for one soldier. Embarrassed by the outcome, a lone soldier charges Morgan with his bayonet at full tilt. Morgan side steps the man and wraps his arms around him. The world would say, “Hit him. Kill him. Disarm him and embarrass him.” Morgan simply looks into his eyes and smiles. The man begins to smile back and they hug. Afterwards, the soldiers follow Morgan into the University for some tea before making the trek back into the village.

The story above is one of many in which a member of the church lives fully into act-four and what it means to be in the world but not of the world. The church will eventually come to understand that isolation from the world, standing out in front and shouting, “Don’t come in” will rob them of God’s gifts. God is using the world as God is using the church. Isolation is not the stance the church should take concerning the world. We can learn how to fully live into act-four by remembering the words of Jesus, “You have heard it said, but I say to you.”

Previously on Improv.

In my previous post, I briefly wrote about three temptations that Wells’ five-act narrative drama attempts to avoid. The three temptations are:

1) To see the principal location of theology as the world or society—the political whole.

2) To assume that because the sacred community is the key location of theology, because God’s principal way of working in the world is through the church, then God has no purpose for the rest of God’s creation.

3) To perceive that in the knowledge of certain key pieces of information, not universally available, one has a unique power. (Improvisation, pg. 39-40).

The church has given in to these temptations because our theology has been based on a three-act narrative drama instead of a five-act drama. For review, the three-act drama is as follows: act-one is the fall, act-two is salvation (Jesus’ death and resurrection), and act-three is the eschaton or rapture and return of Christ. Since our theology has been formed out of the three-act narrative, we’ve succumbed to the temptations listed above, but how have we not avoided these temptations? Perhaps because we do not fully understand what these temptations are. Over the next few paragraphs, we will explore each one a little more fully.

1) To see the principal location of theology as the world or society—the political whole

The first temptations is the most difficult to define or understand because it is the temptation we are engaged in the most. Wells writes, “If Christians do not have a distinctive community, they will seek prominent positions amongst the powerful in the world. They may well regard it as their responsibility, rather than God’s, to make the world come out right, to usher in the kingdom” (Improvisation, p. 39). In other words, the characteristics of the church become confused with the characteristics of the world. To put another way, we confuse the church and the world and try to make the world the church. On the grander scale of the world, we fall prey to this temptation every four years when it is time to elect a new president. Christians from the right and the left come out in full force and argue with one another which person is the one God is calling to the presidency. We judge the policies of the candidates based on morals that we assume are clearly stated in the scriptures; thus we attempt to elect the best candidate who can bring about the kingdom of God, according to our viewpoint. It’s the system we all have grown up in. Christians who grew up in the American life confuse Christianity and worldly politics, especially lately in the Baptist church; which is actually ironic since Baptists were at the forefront of the idea for separation of church and state. We have assumed that it is our role to control the narrative by electing government officials who are Christian because it is what God wants from us.

On the surface, the above is not a bad idea. It is ideal to have politicians who believe in the Christian message to be in power because they could use their power to influence change in a corrupt political system. That is ideal but the reality is that won’t happen. Here’s why, the kingdom of men and the kingdom of God cannot coexist. The kingdom of men will always be about the well being of those who support what is called universal ethics, a belief that there are a set of rules, power structures, and ideals that are accepted as the social norm. The problem is that universal ethics is dictated by those in power, politicians for example, therefore, universal ethics is really ideals accepted by a loud minority. When humans try to usher in the kingdom of God, the kingdom of God encounters the kingdom of men and a battle of opposing ideas take place because the kingdom of God is wholly other than the kingdom of men. In other words, the kingdom of God is too radical, too heavy to be ushered in by sinful mortals.

2) To assume that because the sacred community is the key location of theology, because God’s principal way of working in the world is through the church, then God has no purpose for the rest of God’s creation.

This temptation refers to our dogma as a church. Our beliefs, our sectarianism, isolate the church from the world when we put our holiness above the holiness of God. In other words, we see the church as the only way God is working in the world. This temptation is difficult to avoid because the line between being “not of this world” and separation is very thin. We mistake that being different, being sacred, or being “not of this world” means isolating ourselves from the world around us. Wells writes, “a church that is cutting itself off largely or entirely from its surrounding society is thereby depriving itself of many of the ways in which God’s grace is made plain in the world through the Holy Spirit” (p.39).

Our isolation from the world around us, our local communities, is a result of living in the third-act of the three-act drama or choosing to focus on the wrong act in the five-act narrative drama. We isolate ourselves because we see ourselves, the church, as the only tool in which God uses to tell the narrative or end the narrative. The truth is God has given the church many resources outside our traditions to follow God and participate in the narrative; however, we’ve chosen isolation, waiting for the final act to come. When we isolate ourselves or cut off from society, we are more likely to fall into the first temptation. As the society that exists outside our doors expands and changes while the church remains closed off, we panic and seek to bring about the kingdom through our own means. By panicking, we start to control the narrative instead of living into the narrative.

3) To perceive that in the knowledge of certain key pieces of information, not universally available, one has a unique power.

This temptation may fall under the guise of any of the previous two temptations; however, this temptation is the greatest temptation we fall prey too, especially in America because it gives power to the individual. An example would be that we have been given power through the scriptures to be intimate with God. This temptation resides fully in the three-act narrative drama that focuses solely on the fall, salvation, and the eschaton. This secret knowledge is a form of Gnosticism (p.40), but with the Enlightenment, this turned to the individual and the individual’s security and fulfillment within the narrative. The focus on the individual’s role in the narrative has created a theology that is born out of the individual instead of the community. The church community becomes secondary and the individual’s role in the narrative becomes primary. The church’s theology in a three-act narrative highlights this temptation with the emphasis on personal salvation or a “personal relationship with Jesus.” The church then is only viable to highlight, encourage, or stimulate the individual’s experience.

The individual experience within the second temptation can underwrite a sense of superiority over the faithless. The church, since the focus in on the individual, becomes a group of people who each have a special knowledge, or an access to a special experience, that the world cannot have (p.40). The first temptation, according to Wells, is the more common place to find Christians trying to control their narrative by refusing to share their secret experience with the world, or society, because they may seek to control it or not respect it. Thus, we engage in the most damaging public practices still assuming that thinking the right things or having a personal relationship with Jesus ensures that righteousness remains with them (p.40). We can become engaged in activities that perform appalling injustices without realizing we are doing so because the activity does not violate our personal experience. The individual is defenseless against those who corrupt the narrative because the corruptors have disguised their message to coincide with the personal experience. The individual is simply not strong enough to carry the full weight of the narrative on their shoulders to become the church (p.41). The individual experience does not move the narrative forward; it holds the narrative captive and the church is not able to live in the fourth-act.

The paragraphs above are brief explanations of what the three temptations look like in our narrative. The church will be able to avoid these three temptations better if we seek to understand the temptations and work to recognize them as they appear in God’s story. The five-act narrative drama does seek to avoid these temptations however, within our American context, they are more difficult to avoid. The church can use the five-act narrative drama to pull these temptations to the forefront by better understanding how our ministries are fed by the three temptations.

We will explore how the church can use the five-act narrative drama and avoid the temptations within our ministries in the next few upcoming blog posts. Stay tuned.

A Little Improv: An Introduction

Imagine the Christian narrative as a five act play. Act I is Creation, Act II is Israel, Act III is Jesus, Act IV is the church, and Act V is the eschaton. In his book, Improvisation, Samuel Wells uses this model to engage a different approach to Christian ethics. For Wells, Christian ethics is church ethics, it is more than just how a Christian should live but how the church should function. Wells uses the five act play model to help us engage the dynamic Christian narrative and address church ethics.

The five act play is a modification of the idea of narrative or theology as narrative. The narrative that Wells is modifying succumbs to the following temptations:

1) To see the principal location of theology as the world or society—the political whole.

2) Assume that because the sacred community is the key location of theology because God’s principal way of working in the world is through the church…putting the holiness of the community over the holiness of God.

3) Perceive that in the knowledge of certain key pieces of information, not universally available, the church has a unique power. (Improvisation, pg. 39-40).

Wells introduces a redesigned model of the Christian narrative that avoids the temptations stated above. This five act play model creates a theology of participation in God’s story.

Over the years, the Christian community has regarded its story, its narrative drama as a three act play. The first act would be the fall, the second act would be Jesus’ death and resurrection, and the third act would be the eschaton or the rapture and sequential return of Christ. Since we’ve focused on a three act narrative drama model, the Christian community fell into the temptations Wells listed. The temptations have formed the theology of the church to operate only within the three act narrative drama without much room to improvise. The theology of the three act narrative drama creates a church designed to accentuate three components: separation, infallible truths, and political power. The traditional church model builds on each one of those components with age appropriate Sunday school classes, nurseries, children church, and specific targeted adult worship services.

The theology of the five act narrative drama expounds the three act drama. Wells believes there are two mistakes that can be made about the five act drama. The first mistake is to think one is in a one act play rather than a five act play (p.55). I agree with Wells that this is a mistake but I believe the Christian community has functioned in a three act drama with a focus on the third act. This slight change may not seem like a change on the surface but underneath, we can see that we’ve functioned in a three act drama because our narrative tells of one. The church’s narrative purpose, specifically in America, has been a narrative that functions within the three acts and the narrative spun is one that falls prey to the temptations Wells listed.

The second mistake is to get the wrong act. This mistake overemphasizes one’s own role in the narrative. Wells writes, “If one assumes one is in Act One, one places oneself, rather than God, in the role of creator. There have been no significant events before one’s appearance in the drama. There’s no experience to learn from, no story to join, no drama to enter” (p.55). Wells is weary of these mistakes taking place within the five-act narrative drama, but these mistakes, particularly the second mistake, is one the church has functioned a part of. The church’s theology in the three act model has been to focus on one particular act, act three, and highlight the individual’s role in that final act.

The five-act narrative drama expounds the three-act narrative we have grown accustomed to. The five-act narrative replaces the first act of the fall with creation, focusing on creation and God’s active role in creating the universe. The second act is new; it precedes the third act of Jesus without taking away from the third act. The second act is the covenant blessing of Israel. The scriptures tell the beginning of the covenant with Abraham and God’s faithfulness to the covenant throughout the narratives of the Old Testament. This covenant is brought to life through the Israelites exodus from Egypt and the drama is found in the role God plays in the narrative because it is God who is faithful in writing the story. The third act connects us to the covenant God made with God’s people but it ushers in a turn in the drama. Jesus is introduced in the third act and it is the definitive act. Jesus becomes the center of the drama, in which God reveals God’s character (p.54). God, the author of the narrative, enters the story through Jesus. Act four is the Christians, the church. Like the present church, Israel saw itself in a three act narrative (Creation (fall), Israel, Messiah (p.54)) but Jesus shocks the story when he neither restores political authority nor brings the story to an end (p.54). The church becomes act four in which it continues the story of God’s active participation in the narrative. We are given the Holy Spirit, the Scriptures, baptism, the Eucharist (Communion), we are given a host of material to form and sustain our community. This is the act we are living in at this moment. This is the part of the narrative that we are to be active in with God. The final act or the act still to come is act five, the eschaton or the end. Wells states that this act is how God transforms “the poverty of nature by the riches of grace, of how God turns fallenness and striving and pain into communion and gladness and joy by no other power but of the power of the cross” (p.55).

Our five act play gives the church an opportunity to tune our theology. Instead of theology based in a three act narrative in which the focal act is act three, we are given the freedom to be creative with God as God writes the story. We become participants in the narrative, actors in the drama and we are given freedom to have a little improvisation. The beauty of the fourth act is that we have been given a direction, a glimpse of where God is taking this narrative and the church’s theology is given freedom for improvisation through God’s faithfulness.

The five-act narrative drama changes our act four gatherings. We no longer focus on one act or put one act above the other. Our gatherings become an inter-generational gathering that is telling a story, a story that God is writing, a drama that God is directing and acting in. Over the next few weeks I will be exploring what it means for the church to function within this five-act narrative and how that will affect our gatherings. The goal will be to open up conversation regarding the church as an inter-generational gathering narrative through our theology, worship, church polity, and our lives.