Introduction

I’ve been writing about spiritual abuse and recovery since 2008. Part of what started me down this path was when I took Barbara Orlowski’s survey about experiences of spiritual abuse, responses to the perpetrator and organization, and the recovery process. Sadly, I had multiple severe experiences to draw from, but I must say that the process of completing her survey made a significant difference for me in understanding what happened to me, how bully leaders work over the people under them, and areas I needed to continue healing from.

I’ve also helped people process their story to write it for themselves. And I’ve written other people’s accounts for them, or set up investigative archives for several lawsuits or other major situations involving spiritual abuse. [Unfortunately, I’m not available to do any of these right now, so please don’t contact me to ask if I can help you. I'm swamped with finishing production of a curriculum series.]

At least journaling about our experiences of spiritual abuse and recovery is a process I highly recommend. You’ll likely find yourself exploring issues and answers you might never get into otherwise. But what happens if you’re feeling a nudge to do something more than just “process”? What if you sense you may be led to do something with the product of all that processing? Is it perhaps time to tell your story? And if so, how do you know when to do this, and what you should include? In this article, I’ve captured some practical how-to advice on these and related questions. Hope you find it of help …

Question Frameworks/Tools

If you follow an inkling to write about your experiences, keep in mind there are many different issues and aspects to consider. For instance, there is what happened while you were in a situation of spiritual abuse. And then, there’s what happened to help you realize the situation was abusive. And what you did next. And how you have changed so you aren’t as vulnerable to the kinds of authoritarian leaders and toxic systems as you were hurt by before.

I believe Barbara Orlowski’s 20-question survey provides an essential framework as you begin thinking through the before, during, and after periods of the abuse and recovery processes. This survey was the basis for her research project for her Doctor of Ministry degree. You need to at least look at her questions to see the flow of how they work together – a well-constructed survey, and I found it immensely helpful in processing my own experiences. (I survived three major, long-term experiences of spiritual constriction and abuse. I went through Barbara’s question series for each situation, and found a depth of insight as a result. My survey took probably 40 hours to complete and was nearly 20 pages single-spaced. That was in 2008 and I have been blogging topics from my survey responses ever since!)

The traditional “journalist questions” provided me with another framework I found very useful in detailing specific events of abuse – and oftentimes the larger context or patterns in which those particular events took place:

• Who
• What
• When
• Where
• Why
• How
• How long

The more detail and documentation (for example, emails, photographs, letters, church bulletins) you can provide for each of these questions, the better.

I also have often used the three-part “what” series of:

• What? (What happened as filled in by the journalist questions.)
• So What? (The larger “why” kinds of questions that deal with what significance can be attached to what happened.)
• Now What? – What steps will I take to change the course of the future, given what I’ve figured out?

One final framework to starting working on … and this is one that you’ll find you have to keep working on. And that is the differences between various kinds of critical thinking skills:

• Facts. Details that are not easily disputed, often related to some kind of concrete document. For instance, the electronic timestamp on an email setting the time something happened, or a line in a phone record that tracks a long-distance call made.
• Observations. Something someone has seen, so it is factual at some level, but is not necessarily the full picture, or a fully accurate picture of what was actually there.
• Analysis. How facts and observations and documents and any other forms of evidence fit together, plus what seems to be missing and what may be overemphasized.
• Interpretation. Opinions of how someone perceives the evidence to fit together in the larger picture, the significance of the event and the evidence, what it means in the flow of history for a particular person or situation.
• Coherence. This is about patterns in the evidence and analysis and interpretation, whether what’s there “makes sense” together or if it seems there are gaps in evidence or in logic in putting evidence together.
• Speculation. Opinions of why someone may have done action ABC (“back-casting”), or what could have happened if XYZ had (or had not) happened instead (“forecasting”). The more facts, observations, analysis, and interpretations available, the more likely that such speculations will be reasoned and reasonable – even if there is no right or wrong answer to the question.

The critical thinking skills framework is especially important if you are required to put together your account of events, such as for a sworn deposition or declaration in a lawsuit. And, unfortunately, as we are seeing in the USA, some individuals and organizations are using frivolous lawsuits in their attempts to coerce people into silence. In legal documents, you must be especially careful about the following and leave out the kinds of things that may be inadmissible evidence:

• Hearsay evidence – what someone else says they or some other third party observed. While such secondary sources can help corroborate what you observed – if the parties involved substantiate/document it, it could end up being just hearsay.
• Speculation – what you think may have happened and/or what caused it and why.
• Overgeneralization – a large pattern that doesn’t have enough quantitative or qualitative evidence for your situation to support it.
• Irrelevant – may be an accurate piece of information but doesn’t fit with the case or the specific issues being investigated.
• Allegation or opinion or conclusion instead of fact.

Finally, these question tools above and the practical suggestions below are meant to help you sort things out. You might find a framework that fits better for you, and maybe none of these will be what you’re looking for. At any rate, I think the key thing is this: If you sense you’re being led to journal or blog or otherwise write about your experiences of spiritual abuse and/or recovery, go for it! I suspect what you need to do in the task will emerge, and also that what you uncover and discover will help you (and others) recover. It is a worthy task as stewards of our experience …

Create a Series of “Snapshots”

“Snapshots” at any and every point along the process can be helpful. Whatever pictures you’re able to give offer some important types of information but also hold some pitfalls.

Sometimes what is raw and relatively unprocessed is helpful because it is closer in time to the events, but it is far harder to get away from our emotions and/or wounds enough to do the best at analysis of the specifics, or interpretation of the overall situation.

One way around this is to write as much as we can about our situation from our own perspective, and have someone else with experience in recovery from spiritual abuse interview us. They will likely ask questions we wouldn’t think that will help us talk/write better about the events, our emotional responses, analysis of the facts, interpreting the significance of what happened, what’s missing and what went overboard, and even what might need to happen from here.

If you do an interview, you might want to record it so you can review it later and maybe transcribe parts.

Sometimes what is processed has more perspective from analysis and interpretation, but can come across as clinical.

One work-around for this is to quote from documents (journals, emails, etc.) that date closer to the time of the events or that are from when you were focused on processing some of the more emotional aspects in your recovery process. This is a way to inject a more personal element back in if it becomes too fact-oriented and dry.

Another way around this is to have one or more people you processed the situation with write about their perceptions of what happened with you. Add quotes from their writings to your story. This lets you tell the story “in stereo,” or more like a “Human MRI” of the situation.

Use “Primary” and “Secondary” Sources

The more detailed, documented, and chronological your own “long version account” of your process, the better – especially by using both primary and secondary sources.

Only the principal people involved can provide “primary source documentation” through their emails, notes, day timer schedules, phone records, etc., at the time of the events and interviews or depositions later on. Those items and observations help establish facts and timelines and participants, etc.

The “secondary source” layer of resources shares other people’s analysis and interpretation of the facts. They look at such things as gaps in the evidence, interconnections among people, patterns that appear at a given time or over time, and how various patterns compare with some internal standard (such as the organization’s constitution and by-laws) or external standards (such as legal mandates or “biblical” commands).

It is far easier to connect with someone’s narrative when there is a clear chronological timeline given. When pieces are all out of sequence, each piece may be helpful but it quickly gets confusing to figure out how they all go together – like a film with too many flashbacks and flash-forwards. As the crafters of our narrative account, we need to do the hard work of getting things aligned in order – not leave that for the readers.

Finally, it is my personal observation that the more documentation and analysis that gets compiled, integrated, and presented in a compelling way about a bully leader or abusive organization, the more difficult that makes it for perpetrators plus their enablers to refute. It creates a “preponderance of evidence” – which doesn’t simply mean you have more pieces of evidence than they do, and so you “win.” Instead, it is about clarity of the details and coherence in how it all fits together. This is, in part, why I’ve helped create several archives on spiritual abuse-based defamation lawsuits, and investigative reporting websites for other situations. Besides feeling the need to figure out the events for myself, I found that conclusions were far more solid if you had a “cast list” of the individuals involved, a timeline of key events, a list of relevant documents, and as extensive of an annotated bibliography as possible. The more information, from multiple people directly involved, accurately presented in a cohesive storyline – the harder it is to deny opinions or allegations that are drawn from it.

Dealing with “Documentation”

I’ve used the term documentation a few times. It’s important to “document” this or that aspect of your narrative account whenever you can. But what if you don’t have tape recordings of meetings, or emails, or certified letters kicking you out of church membership, or … How can you provide “documentation” without documents?

That word doesn’t always mean “proof” or even “documents,” though it can include those. Think of it more as an overall approach to sharing your story: Be clear and accurate in your descriptions, and to write with the maximum amount of detail you can remember, or that you can reconstruct from whatever primary and secondary sources you do have available.

Documentation can be qualitative not just quantitative. When you hear the term preponderance of evidence from civil lawsuits, it’s about the quality of the account being specific, coherent, convincing.

Here is a pair of examples about the same situation that show what a qualitative difference could look like.

A. “In 2008 some horrible spiritual abuse happened when the pastor hurt us, and that pushed us out of our ministry positions.”

B. “In March 2008, my former pastor did ABC to pressure myself and my spouse at least three times to tell him the personal issues of a particular person in our couples ministry. The issues were very sensitive and we had given our word not to disclose them without this person’s permission. As my spouse and I prayed and talked together about this, we concluded it was not appropriate to tell – or to keep being pressured – so we decided to resign from our ministry positions in April.”

The only “documents” indirectly referred to in both statements were a calendar for a date and a list of people and their ministry positions. Which communicates more information? Which sample would you find to be better quality and/or more credible, and why?

Let me share a quote that reinforces that “preponderance” relates not to the quantity of evidence, but to the quality. I found this definition at Legal Dictionary at Law.Com helpful:

Preponderance of the Evidence. The greater weight of the evidence required in a civil (non-criminal) lawsuit for the trier of fact (jury or judge without a jury) to decide in favor of one side or the other. This preponderance is based on the more convincing evidence and its probable truth or accuracy, and not on the amount of evidence. Thus, one clearly knowledgeable witness may provide a preponderance of evidence over a dozen witnesses with hazy testimony, or a signed agreement with definite terms may outweigh opinions or speculation about what the parties intended. Preponderance of the evidence is required in a civil case and is contrasted with “beyond a reasonable doubt,” which is the more severe test of evidence required to convict in a criminal trial. No matter what the definition stated in various legal opinions, the meaning is somewhat subjective.

You might also want to check out the Wikipedia article on Legal Burden of Proof for more details on the multi-tiered system of U.S. evidence for trials. Don’t get caught up in trying to identify all of the abusive people and enablers involved, and all their activities, with evidence that ties it all up beyond a shadow of a doubt. Tell your own story, the slice of the perpetration pie that you personally experienced, be a witness to what happened. You don’t have to do the job of the prosecutor, too.

You’re more likely to present your story for publication in a blog than as a sworn statement for a civil lawsuit. However, you might want to think about what you would say if you were in front of two different audiences.

First, what would you want to share to a group of your closest friends about what happened but also how God has made a difference and helped you through it all? The sense of relief, of gratitude, and perhaps even of joy can infuse your story with hope. You may find points of God’s providence and protection along the way, how you may have found new sources of encouragement and renewed hope for the future despite the many disappointments, how a healing process brought points of welcome surprise.

Second, what would you state in front of a judge or jury? That sense of the seriousness of sharing testimony might help you hone in on what the most important issues are, and to be as clear and convincing as possible, and to state what you do know and be aware of where you may have gaps that you will never be able to fill in.

And if you do find gaps, it also could be convincing simply to state, “There are those who could potentially corroborate these dates and details, but it has also been my observation that my former pastor — in the documented pattern of many other authoritarian leaders — surrounded himself with people who agreed with him, and dealt with issues of conflict and confrontation in private, which means there would be no other direct witnesses to the events. However, other former members experienced those exact same patterns of isolating the communication so no one else would know the details, and they can speak to that pattern although not to my specific details.”

So, documentation goes together with detailed points of information and patterns that show how those details seem to fit together. This will help you move from the sources and experiences, to their significance.

Editing Our Account and Discerning Points of Significance

It is generally easier to edit down a long narrative account to a shorter story for a specific purpose, than it is to try to add details back in when our records are short on facts, observations, and reflections.

[Caution: Always save copies of your longest versions so you have the full amount of detail stored somewhere.]

Many of us are not very good at editing our own writings. A work-around is to have someone else edit the material for us. Work with them in selecting a storyline or a particular angle the best suits the specific purpose we have in mind, the audience it is for, and the maximum publishing length we’re allowed.

Also, many of us are not very capable of seeing where our own storyline fits into the bigger picture of things. Find someone who is better at that to edit or help you edit, or who can at least expand your perspective by asking big-picture kinds of reflection questions. These questions usually focus on issues about significant, choices, where God was/wasn’t in the picture … things like that which go beyond the facts and the analysis, into interpretation and the largest possible “so what?” of it all, and “now what?” it means for future choices and actions. Because writing our story is also a theological task that may be used to minister to others, it helps to get feedback or editing input from people who can sort through spiritual dimensions of what happened.

Here are some of these kinds of reflection and interpretation questions:

• Did that particular event or person seem important to you at the time? Why or why not?
• Why did it/they turn out to be crucial later?
• Looking back now, what do you think might have helped you make a different/better/wiser decision then?
• If you had the chance to do it all over, what would you change and why?
• Where was God in all of this?
• Were there times you felt He was absent? Other times when you strongly felt His presence?
• What biblical passages or theological principles do you think were distorted to inflict abuse on you? How did you respond to those?
• How do you believe God helped you providentially, even through surviving such painful, damaging experiences?
• What do you think may have made you susceptible to being drawn into a toxic faith-based organization and/or abused spiritually by someone who misuses religious authority?
• If you had the opportunity to share your “Top 10 List” of how others could avoid getting into a spiritually abusive church, ministry, or similar situation – what would you tell them?
• What would be on your “Top 10 List” if you could share with others on how to deal with abuse after you’ve figured out you are in, or have been in, a “malignant ministry” situation?
• What would be your top piece of advice to future church and ministry leaders to help them avoid misusing their authority, and why that particular piece of advice?
• If you could set up a spiritual abuse prevention program for every church in North America, what would you include in it and why?

Expect Journaling or Writing To Be Spiritually Stretching

If you’re being led to write about your experiences, follow how the Holy Spirit is leading. And keep in mind, the documenting and writing process will likely stretch you in ways you couldn’t have imagined. Also keep in mind that the leading to get your experiences down in writing may be separate from what you’re led to do with what you’ve written, once that is farther along.

Pushing back on bullies has to start somewhere. It takes time and documentation to build a well-reasoned case against an individual abusive leader or a toxic organization. You may feel alone and very vulnerable at first. And you might feel even more isolated, strange, creeped-out, etc., if you’re the first person you know of to write about a particular situation of spiritual abuse. But don’t let that stop you – follow how you’re being led in the here and now, and know that other decisions can be made later.

It may help to keep in mind that the more your account becomes linked to other people’s stories from the same situation, the more your own “piece of the puzzle” will fit into the larger picture. Ultimately, the more related sources of facts, analysis, and interpretations that get connected, the more significance each piece will have, and the more everyone involved can learn from the bigger picture that emerges. So, maybe what is happening for you right now is simply to work through the process of getting your piece ready for whenever it is called for.

Also, even if you are not led to publish your story, or not publish it right now, the writing process is still valuable. It will make a difference, at least for you! You’ll probably find yourself asking questions you never did before, coming to new conclusions, revising old concepts, getting rid of bad theology … all kinds of things that rarely happen unless there is an intentional process to reflect on life as it unfolds and to let God keep transforming you with the character of Jesus Christ.

Is This the Wisest Time to Publish?

Even if it clearly is time for you to write your own account of the abuse and recovery, there is a separate question to consider – and you might not know the answer to this until you’ve finished your write-up, or maybe not for a long time afterwards: Is this the time to publish what I’ve produced?

There is no formula for this, as it isn’t a right/wrong decision … it’s about wise/unwise options and following the Spirit’s leading. That’s the way discernment works in decision-making, and it could be that relearning to trust your discernment process is part of what recovery is about. (As many spiritual abuse survivors testify, authoritarian leaders conditioned them to distrust their own thinking process and only trust what their leadership figures tell them.) So – here are some questions to help you consider whether this is a providential time to publish, and also discern what conditions if any might need to be adopted.

• Is this about “payback” to embarrass them, or to warn others and protect them from probable harm?
• Is there any way in which publication is potentially reckless of me?
• Does the reputation or track record of the abusive people – perpetrators, henchmen, and silent enablers – I’d be exposing suggest it isn’t safe to do so? Is there evidence that they are the vengeful, retaliatory type?
• Am I as prepared as possible for any and all consequences – including the possibility of a defamation lawsuit?
• Is my spouse in agreement on the content to post/publish, and ready to navigate any potential consequences with me?
• Are there reasons for not publishing right now because of family issues of any kind?
• What feedback have I gotten from my mentor, “personal advisory board,” and/or prayer partners? How does that seem to line up with what I’m sensing?
• Would it be wiser to publish this under a pseudonym? A survivor account needs enough details to be credible, but are there too many specific details such that the perpetrator(s) of abuse will know exactly who “anonymous” is anyway? Or will it have more credibility if I use my name on the piece?
• Is my story a “lynchpin piece”? Did I know insider information such that other people’s accounts won’t make as much sense until readers know the specifics I am being led to share? If I share my story now, will it potentially encourage other survivors from our situation to share their story?
• Posting a personal story often carries the responsibility of being available for at least the near-term for follow-up to people who have questions, comments, and/or are sparked to share their own related story. Do I have other life circumstances right now that would make it difficult to respond to them and their needs? Am I ready to respond to genuine needs and not feel guilty if I don’t respond to everything everyone might want from me?

Conclusion: Survivor Stories Help Shape a Movement

Many of us who are survivors of spiritual abuse make a commitment to do what we can so that others will not have to endure the kinds of suffering we have. The past few years, the “survivor blog community” seems to have grown exponentially – as has the online sharing of narratives, source documents, and analysis about spiritual abuse. Individuals are sharing their accounts of spiritual abuse, coming to a place of recovery, and the transformations that follow. Groups of survivors from the same church, ministry, or denomination are exposing authoritarian leaders and toxic organizational systems. The weight of evidence from our documentation, observations, and reasoned interpretation may be a significant part of what leads to change in those systems – or at least holding them forth for accountability.

But there is also a deep purpose in sharing that benefits individuals. I am reminded here of a line from the movie, Shadowlands. One student of C.S. Lewis explains why he so loves reading books: “We read to know we’re not alone.” The experience of spiritual abuse must be one of the most devastating things that can happen to a person, since we are relational beings and abuse usually cuts us off from community. When victims of such abuse read the accounts of others – narratives that seek healing and compassion, present justice and future prevention – that relinkage to a larger community may play a significant role in helping them move from “victim” to “survivor.”

So, consider that if the Lord is leading you to share your story, it may be so that someone else will know they are not alone. And isn’t that often how we rediscover hope, when we find a voice of empathy from someone who knows what it is like to endure what we have gone through? When the time comes to share, steward your story with that hope in mind … and may the Lord’s blessing be upon you in that ministry.

Additional “futuristguy” Resources

Many people are now writing or commenting on spiritual abuse survivor topics. Given the damage to our souls wrought by such so-called “discipleship,” it is no surprise that some of what we write demonstrates anger, sarcasm, innuendo, curses, and harsh or vulgar language. However, if this does perhaps help us in our venting about abuse and abusers, it can also prove “triggering” – not edifying – for others who read it. So, in the following post, I offer some practical advice on Writing Respectfully and Defusing “Triggers” that I have learned over the years in my research writing on abuse, violence, and social action.

For advanced suggestions on writing your story, see Tutorial #9 on Transformation. This tutorial covers a series of critical thinking skills and tools for detailing events and discerning the times, with the ultimate goal of moving beyond our current paradigm and past factors that shaped it, and pursuing a future that is both possible and preferable. As an illustration, it uses the Sovereign Grace Ministries (SGM) network, and the civil lawsuit filed in September 2012 against SGM and specific leaders within it. This tutorial also has a section in Part 2 called “From Single-System Trajectories to Mega-System Trends.” It contains a list of spiritual abuse investigation and archive sites, many of which present the stories of individual survivors – especially from very specific church denominations or ministry organizations.

If you are interested in some examples of my writing about complex issues involving aspects of spiritual abuse, check out the following archive sites and blogs. These show how I used various of the above principles in creating as comprehensive of a “case” as I could about allegations of abuse of spiritual authority. I often built the entire historical narrative by starting with just a basic timeline of major events, a list of “key players,” and a few main source documents. Factual details and the overall context got filled in by bits and pieces from items in the bibliography. Logical issues, gaps in evidence, overgeneralizations and other problems became more evident as the factual narrative got longer and stronger, and as some well-reasoned comments on blog articles and news reports pointed out inconsistencies. In some cases, parts of the archive/site were done by teams, but I did the majority of the writing/editing. See the first page or the “About” page for an overview of the archive/site.

Beaverton Grace Bible Church Defamation Lawsuit Archive.

Grenier Defamation Lawsuit Archive.

Prestonwood Baptist Church Silent No More.

Summary: Many people are now writing or commenting on spiritual abuse survivor topics. Given the damage to our souls wrought by so-called “discipleship,” it is no surprise that some of what we write demonstrates anger, sarcasm, innuendo, curses, and harsh or vulgar language. However, if this does perhaps help us in our venting about abuse and abusers, it can also prove “triggering” – not edifying – for others who read it. So, in this post, I offer some practical advice on Writing Respectfully and Defusing “Triggers” that I have learned over the years in my research writing on abuse, violence, and social action.

The following is adapted from comments I wrote for a post at The Wartburg Watch (TWW) this month, TWW Request Re: Language Used in Referencing Any Lawsuit/Ministry. This post arose from a previous comment.s someone else put on that blog that was apparently interpreted as threatening by another blogger, and this led to an extended community discussion on blog commenting policies and related language-based issues in the spiritual abuse survivors’ community. I picked up on topics related to what I see as disrespectful labeling or treatment of opponents, and language of abuse, gender, and sexual innuendo that can act as “trauma triggers” for survivors. Be sure to read the TWW post, as it also contains important suggestions and guidelines for writing about narrative accounts dealing with various kinds of abuse, and about navigating public disagreements about such situations.

*       *       *       *       *

I’m glad this discussion is happening … thanks Dee and Deb for hosting it here! We all have different tolerance levels and triggers. And here at TWW we’re so often talking about issues that rattle the core of our being. It’s sometimes hard to stay engaged. How many of us have been desensitized because we’ve been overexposed to being talked to or talked about insensitively? So, if there are ways to reduce the numbness, and consider how best to dialogue about these serious issues in ways that keep the maximum number of people engaged — I’m in!

That said, I’m a linguist and editor by training, and I find language usage difficult in the best of times. But it can be particularly dicey in this realm of crimes and lawsuits involving forms of violence, spiritual abuse, and/or sexual violation and their emotional aftermath.

I’m not sure I have “the” answers, but I have had to wrestle with a lot of questions over the years. Much of this comes from my editing projects dealing with “heavy,” trigger-riddled issues like: domestic violence, child sexual abuse, sexual assault, gender peacemaking instead of misogyny (hatred of women) and misandry (hatred of men), sexual addiction, gender identity disorders, spiritual abuse, dystopian societies, human rights violations, etc.

Many in the audiences for these articles, books, and resource centers are survivors of various kinds of abuse. For a lot of them, their responses to abuse have also led them into destructive behavior patterns and addictions. “Triggers” can affect them all, so I’ve had to find work-arounds that hopefully maximize getting crucial and constructive information across, but minimize the probability of triggers or overloading their tolerance on sensitive topics. In doing this, I’m not a therapist, I’m a research/resource writer and editor. So, here are some things to think about, based on my experiences of talking with people from these various kinds of backgrounds and writing or editing positive recovery materials for them and those who suffer from similar issues. I think it can apply to blog comments as much as to articles/blog posts or books.

* What triggers flashbacks or new episodes of acting out may not be the same for survivors of sexual abuse as for those dealing with sexual addiction. We would do well to consider both groups. Sometimes the topic or details may make it a trigger for one but not the other, or potentially even both at the same time.

* What acts as a trigger is complicated by the fact that different learning styles make us more aware of different details. For instance, not everyone is aroused sexually by visual images that leave little to their imagination; it might just as easily be by words on a page that trigger their imagination.

With that in mind, I would suggest that the probability of something we say or write being a trigger to survivors and/or to those with addictions INCREASES:

* The more detailed the depiction is overall. Even if this description is accurate, does it provide too much of a “picture”?

* The more explicit it is about the sexual activities or violence that took place. Can I state or suggest what happened without getting too graphic?

* The closer the language is to slang or street terms. Can I restate this in more “clinical terms” that accurately label a behavior but don’t make it read like an X-rated/“red band” movie trailer? [There is a potential problem when talking about lawsuits or criminal cases that involve child sexual abuse or other kinds of sexual assault. If the descriptions are "too clean and clinical," it potentially sanitizes and minimizes what often proves to be the most devastating form of personal violation and violation possible. The best balance is probably somewhere in between, with an emphasis geared toward the probable audience. Complacent leaders may need the shock of a more graphic description; victims/survivors in healing may need clear enough language to label what happened to them as abuse but not to sensationalize it.]

* If the comment was intentionally designed to label someone or otherwise be clever, rude, or sarcastic, it may be offensive not necessarily because it is merely a sexual comment, but because it objectifies, demeans, and dehumanizes people. Objectification of people is the core of power lust, and hence spiritual abuse of power, not just pornographic lust. I wonder if anyone gets victimized who was not first objectified … And this kind of language is often meant to be hurtful. For instance, the literal translation of the Greek root words in sarcasm mean to “rip or tear [chasm] flesh [sarx].” Is that really appropriate? Or is there another way to express our genuine/reasonable dislike, disgust, and/or righteous anger without resorting to “the F Bomb,” sexual innuendos, cutting remarks, or any kinds of dehumanizing labels?

On the other topic of lawsuits and cautions, the suggestions Dee gave are stellar. It is important to use “allegedly” and related kinds of terms consistently. Such legitimate caution adds credibility to our writing.

I did have one suggestion to think about. It’s a technique you may have seen me use in writing/commenting about lawsuits. The first time I use a person’s name, I give his/her first and last name. Next time, it generally is Mr. ABC or Ms. XYZ. I use that for everyone — plaintiffs, defendants, witnesses, parents, pastors, congregation members, etc. This is a conventional kind of journalistic practice, but I use it because I find it helps me maintain a more “civil” tone — especially when talking about an alleged or convicted perpetrator of a horrific crime like sexual abuse.

I can’t tell you how often it helps me rein in what might otherwise turn aggressive. I could quickly degenerate into — in the immortal words of the B-level superhero Mr. Furious in the movie *Mystery Men* — “going all Pompei on them!” Certainly we should not be known for anger as our “super power.” I very easily could, and I know it. And this technique helps me keep that tendency in check.

*       *       *       *       *

As a general add-on comment to what I wrote earlier about writing as respectfully as possible: Maybe it’s more for my benefit than for theirs to use Mr. and Ms. with people’s names. It helps diffuse my anger and reminds me to preserve their human dignity, even for people who don’t “deserve” it for their heinous activities. But they still are bearers of God’s image, and it doesn’t help their way to potential repentance when I vilify them and plant the pathway back with so many landmines that their shame is unbearable. It is a tension, though, between leaving the way to Jesus open for all, and yet making the Church and the churches a safe place for all …

The best example of treating people with dignity in the midst of the most inhumane of circumstances comes from Grey is the Colour of Hope — the diary of Irina Ratushinskaya’s first year in the Soviet gulag as a political prisoner for being a human rights activist. She lived in the women political prisoners’ zone, with anywhere from just a few to more than a dozen others, from all across the Soviet Union. Many of the women were from Christian backgrounds that traditionally had severe theological differences that had meant religious division in both Tsarist and Soviet eras: Orthodox and Catholic, Baptist and Pentecostal. And occasionally their camp included women from Jewish or atheist backgrounds as well.

I believe Ratushinskaya’s account of how these women dialogued together and attempted to persuade one another — and yet ultimately allowed for individual determination — shows us how to reason well with people from different backgrounds from our own. The women as a community also demonstrate how human rights activists can “fight fair” when there needs to be “push back” on individual bullies and dehumanizing systems. It’s the only non-fiction book I’ve read 10 times …

In 1984, I was able to journey to Dachau. I’d already read books about the concentration camp, and while I was there I watched their documentary film and saw the site.

In 1987, I went to Flossenbürg, where nearly 100,000 prisoners went through its gates and 3 out of 10 died there. Dietrich Bonhoeffer was one of them. The international chapel there had stained glass windows or artwork donated by the many countries and cultures who lost citizens there. It was a solemn moment, sensing the souls of many whom history overlooks.

I am reminded today of a book related to the Holocaust that I read in the 1990s. It is by Dr. Robert Jay Lifton. Dr. Lifton is one of the most eminent pioneers of what turned into the discipline of “psychology of trauma.” He has researched and written on some of the most difficult topics imaginable, yet close to the core of what it means to respect the dignity of all humanity, and to push back the evil that we are all to capable of creating. The Holocaust. Hiroshima. Thought reform/”brainwashing” in Communist China. The trauma inflicted by the social conditioning in the Soviet system. The Aum Shinrikyo apocalyptic cult.

What follows is a quote from Dr. Lifton that I used in a research article I did on “Thought Control, Toxic Churches, and Lessons from The Hunger Games Trilogy.” I believe he offers us a thought-provoking message on this important Holocaust Remembrance Day …

*       *       *       *       *

What gives Dr. Lifton the fortitude to do this kind of deep research into such difficult topics? He has studied real-world events that are as horrific as the fictional world of Panem and The Hunger Games. Where does he find the strength to carry on? I don’t know what Dr. Lifton’s spiritual views are, but I have often pondered this quote from the foreword in his 1986 book, The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide.

“One cannot expect to emerge from a study of this kind spiritually unscathed, all the more so when one’s own self is the instrument for taking in forms of experience one would have preferred not to have known about. But the other side of the enterprise for me has been the nourishing human network, extending throughout much of the world, within which I worked. Survivors were at the heart of it, and they provided a kind of anchoring … [We are] capable of learning from carefully examined past evil. I undertook this study, and now offer it, in that spirit of hope.” (page xiii)

Whatever Dr. Lifton’s philosophical or religious beliefs, clearly he embodies the concept of “redemptive investment.” Somewhere, sometime, it really costs someone in order to provide a meaningful blessing to others – even if those so blessed remain completely unaware of those who served to their benefit. Dr. Lifton’s research work cost him personally and spiritually, calling forth sacrifice and transformation through engagement with suffering. Can we expect our efforts at discernment in the realm of toxic churches and malignant ministers to involve it any less?

The WabiSabi Backstory

Wabisabi is a Japanese concept of bringing together polar opposites and finding paradoxical harmony – such as something refined with something rustic, rough with smooth, or people who are old with those who are young. Perhaps you’ve seen a picture of a earthenware teapot or bowl that has cracked with use, but instead of throwing it out, its owners have filled the gaps with gold. It may not be useful for its original purpose anymore, but its flaws do not make is now useless! That’s the sentiment behind wabisabi: keep together and conserve, find a way to make opposites work.

The WabiSabi event in Austin, Texas, during March of 2003 was designed to bridge some of the relational gaps caused by the modern-to-postmodern paradigm shift. It brought together polar opposites – older generations with younger, men and women, emerging paradigms with conventional. The organizers invited me to be one of three people who shared with the large group about our journeys as Boomers who were middle-of-the-pack to nearer the GenX end of the Boom. Ten minutes to share freely whatever I thought was important, to a group that ranged from ages 17 to 70s.

But what exactly would be important for this group at this time to hear?

The following article is what I spoke about during that 10-minute presentation, and then added to the next week when I wrote up what I’d said, and posted it as the very first article on my beyondposthuman blog. It was 10 years ago today: April 3, 2003. I have edited it only sightly, and kept in the quirky language that I used back then.

It’s rather longish and I tried to split it into two, but felt like it didn’t worked right then. So, it is what it is: just all in one. And as with many essays I write, they’re meant to be read slowly, drunk in with a cup of coffee or tea in hand, savored and reflected on. And I do hope you’ll find some gold in it to fill some gaps …

*       *       *       *       *       *       *

Originally posted on Beyondposthuman.blogspot.com ~ Thursday, April 03, 2003

The Frodo Syndrome:

Overcoming Grief and Melancholia
in the Modern-to-Postmodern Transition

© 2003, 2013 Brad Sargent

I’m still processing from this past weekend’s WabiSabi conference. I really enjoyed the connections with wonderful, integrative people of all ages. But I also had some unusual experiences, one that could perhaps be considered a little peculiar, or else a pretty cool “Spirit thing.” It happened because they asked me to be one of three people (with Andrew Jones and Mark Thames) who shared with the large group and then answered questions. So, here’s the little-known “backstory” to what I ended up sharing for about 10 minutes – “The Frodo Syndrome.”

That wasn’t at all what I originally thought I’d talk about. I’d woken up that morning about every 30 minutes because I kept thinking of new things that I thought God wanted me to talk about. But when I finally got up, I realized it was going to be a horrible day physically. Then at the gathering, I got into several conversations in a row that seemed to agitate all those rant-o-matic sore spots I have about “missions” that ignore postmoderns, dynamics of generational clashes involving control and contempt, Christian publishing … issues, issues, issues! Sadly, that made it worse, cuz I got so stirred up.

By the time I finally was called up front to share, I was practically a limpazoid, and (thankfully) had a barstool with a back to sit on. Otherwise, if I’d been sitting on a regular stool, I probably would’ve slipped right off, onto the floor, out the door, down the steps, and been whisked away by the butterfly breezes. Okay, nuf surrealist stuff. But that’s what it felt like. “Thin … like butter scraped over too much bread.”

So, I went to my last resort, which, according to good doctrine and wise practice, actually should have been my first resort. Pray. Pray God would sustain me. Pray the Spirit would overcome my already exhaustion at 10 AM and say something through me that would connect people with Jesus and encourage those who were there. And He answered, integrating a message through my heart and bypassing my normal tendency to do the intellectual-download thing.

And that’s how it came about that I launched into an unfinished article idea I’d been working on for weeks: “The Frodo Syndrome” – the essence of grief and melancholia in the modern-to-postmodern era … an article I’d tried several times to sit down and write out, but it just wasn’t the fullness of time for it then. At WabiSabi, it was. And apparently, it flowed. (I’ll look forward to hearing the tapes, because I was so tired that mostly the broad strokes only stayed in my mind.) Here is my written version from what I spoke, and more, just finished tonight.

The Frodo Syndrome

I have become a fan of J.R.R. Tolkien and The Lord of the Rings. There is so much theology in his amazing and complex story! Grief is one theme that struck me when I read the trilogy for the first time, just last year after seeing The Fellowship of the Ring. It continues to resonate when I rewatch the first two films. One dimension of that grief is summed up when the Elven Queen Galadriel communicates telepathically with her son-in-law, Elrond, and states, “The strength of the Ringbearer is failing. In his heart, Frodo begins to understand. The quest will claim his life.”

And indeed, we see Frodo slowly but perceptibly grow more weary at the increasing heaviness of the burden given to him, to destroy Sauron’s evil One Ring in the fires of Mount Doom. But, as always happens when we embrace the suffering that God providentially lays before us, we see our strongest life potentials develop through Christlike character. And in the midst of a quest that could send us to the edge of despair, we can find hope. Maybe that’s why Samwise Gamgee’s soliloquy at the end of the film, The Two Towers, so touches our hearts.

Frodo: I can’t do this, Sam.

Sam: I know. It’s all wrong. By rights we shouldn’t even be here. But we are. It’s like in the great stories, Mr. Frodo. The ones that really mattered. Full of darkness and danger they were. And sometimes you didn’t want to know the end. Because how could the end be happy? How could the world go back to the way it was when so much bad had happened?

But in the end, it’s only a passing thing, this shadow. Even darkness must pass. A new day will come. And when the sun shines it will shine out the clearer.

Those were the stories that stayed with you. That meant something, even if you were too small to understand why. But I think, Mr. Frodo, I do understand. I know now. Folk in those stories had lots of chances of turning back only they didn’t. Because they were holding on to something.

Frodo: What are we holding on to, Sam?

Sam: There’s some good in this world, Mr. Frodo. And it’s worth fighting for.

We need hope that our anguish has meaning. Frodo will eventually find that hope made manifest, but that takes many chapters in the books and won’t really show itself until sometime late in the third and final movie, The Return of the King, due in the theatres this Christmas season of 2003. Meanwhile, Frodo must struggle through the suffering. I think a turning point comes two-thirds of the way through the first movie in the trilogy, after Frodo has looked into Galadriel’s mirror and then freely offers her the One Ring.

Immediately after the Galadriel passes the test by not accepting the ring, Frodo realizes again he cannot escape his quest of taking this Ring of Power to Mount Doom, to “unmake” it by casting it into its flames. “I cannot do this alone,” he laments.

Galadriel turns toward him and says, “You are a Ring bearer, Frodo. To bear a Ring of power is to be alone.” She lifts her hand and reveals that she, too, is a Ring Bearer. “This is Nenya, the Ring of Adamant,” she smiles compassionately, “and I am its Keeper.” Then Galadriel catches Frodo’s gaze and tells him, “This task was appointed to you, and if you do not find a way, no one will.”

“Then I know what I must do,” he sighs. “It’s just … I’m afraid to do it.”

At this point, Galadriel bends down, and meets him at eye level. She speaks to him in a kind but serious manner: “Even the smallest person can change the course of the future.”

That one sentence summarizes the impact we can have as followers of Jesus Christ. “Even the smallest person can change the course of the future.” It gets me almost every time I hear it.

And as one who lives in the in-between zones of the modern-to-postmodern era of transition, I often feel the increasing heaviness of the quest to bridge the many cultural divisions manifested within our churches. Making it more difficult is the fact that there is no common language to explain what we experience, no shared framework to bridge our differences. Similarly, Frodo as Ring Bearer could never fully convey to the rest of the Fellowship about the impact that carrying the One Ring had on him.

So we find that there are serious depths of melancholy and grief on all sides of the postmodern-generational divides. The older generations often want to bless the younger, but feel unable to understand their emerging world or that the community connection has been frayed by their overcontrol. The younger want to be blessed, but feel unable to live in the world of the elders and also feel they must answer to a higher authority and be/do what they were created for in the world as it now is.  How do we find a language to express this disconnect, and facilitate a both/and, “wabisabi” dialogue designed to keep us connected and let all parties find purpose despite the chaos?

Two More Films to Show the Way Through Feelings

Films often summarize such dilemmas in concrete, relational ways that crystallize the essential dynamics of the problem. At WabiSabi, I illustrated this irony of melancholy with a pair of movies that focuses on the heart issue of grief over the disconnections: Mr. Holland’s Opus and Beyond Silence. In this pair of bookend films, Mr. Holland’s Opus shares the elders’ perspective, Beyond Silence shares that of the younger generation.

Mr. Holland’s Opus focuses on a man who is passionate about composing music, but who settles more for teaching music because it pays the bills. When his wife becomes pregnant, he anticipates with great joy in being able to share his passion with this child. But, sadly, their son is deaf.

After many relational struggles between father and son, Mr. Holland eventually “gets it” – he changes the course of his heart and thus the course of the future – not only for himself, but for his wife and son as well. He makes efforts to bridge the void, to find analogies in lights and vibrations to represent the emotions of music for communicating with his son.

In Beyond Silence, Lara is a German girl who is born to deaf parents – both of them have been deaf from birth. Lara learns sign language and she functions even as a pre-teen as primary interpreter for her parents when they go out banking, shopping, and otherwise attempting to navigate in the world of the hearing. They rely on her, and yet do not realize that Lara is filtering everything that she signs to them. She oversimplifies situations, thinking that they cannot (or would not) be able to comprehend the complexities of the world as it really is.

Complicating the plot is the fact that this young woman discovers a gift of musical talent when an aunt gives her a clarinet. She is a prodigy in her playing – but how can she share with her parents her talent and the world of music that she so deeply loves? Again, the double crux: In individual terms, how can you communicate your passion when those you desperately wish to share it with have no framework to understand it? In cultural terms, how can you communicate the realities of the world you live in when the generations at the other end of the age spectrum from you have no framework to understand it?

There are many points when the daughter moves towards despair at the conflict. Still, she embraces her musical performances as if driven by angels to make music that echoes in heaven, and she invites her very stubborn father to attend her symphony audition anyway, despite his opposition and confusion. At the end of the film, he is there, standing in the darkness at the back of the music hall – but he is there, nevertheless.

Working WabiSabi in the Kingdom

There are many intriguing parallels to consider within this pair of films. I find it worth thinking about how both films bring resolve to the intergenerational conflict when the elders in each story turn their hearts toward the children – just as the Scriptures talk about in Malachi 4:6 and in its repetition in the gospels: “… turn the hearts of the parents to their children, and the hearts of the children to their parents …” The younger generation can request understanding and respect, but cannot force it. Neither can the elder generation demand understanding and respect … but they are still the primary party responsible for taking the first step to embrace and affirm those who are younger.

This is a hard, hard thing – for those on both sides of this mindset divide! In a “Kingdom culture” community, we must invest time and relational energy into blessing one another, equipping each other to understand our cultures, and journeying together as a team-family-fellowship. And we must move toward doing this unconditionally.

That means giving up control over the look of the results (which I suspect will be much harder for the elders to do, as emerging churches growers will personify very different styles which the elders may even find culturally offensive).

That also means giving up contempt against others over feelings of having been hindered in ministry (which I suspect will be harder for the youngers to do, as it has been culturally and spiritually traumatizing to feel so bound by tradition, hierarchical leadership, and institutional structures).

I don’t think this is a romanticized idealism; it is more than just possible – it is preferable. Actually, it is more than that – it is imperative. But the work is hard. And ultimately, integrating people from opposite places into one Kingdom through the tough stuff of relationships brings ennoblement to our spirits. Christlike character has a chance to steep within us, in the cauldrons of our community. And, speaking both from and to the older generations, I believe it calls upon us to bear the greater sacrifice by giving up our control and honoring the gifts and needs of the younger generations.

Frodo’s Sacrifices Fill Gaps with Gold

And so – bringing it back to Frodo – it is like when the four Hobbits of the Fellowship return to their homeland of the Shire near the end of Tolkien’s trilogy of books. As Gandalf parts ways with Frodo, Samwise, Merry, and Pippin, he tells them that all they have learned from the “War of the Ring” was to train them to deal with the evils that have now divided their homeland. Their mission is now to apply their character and all the wisdom they have learned, and make a constructive difference in rooting out whatever “anti-Kingdom” influences have corrupted their society and traumatized their people.

As this “scouring of the Shire” ensues, Frodo especially manifests a continued melancholy, but it demonstrates itself in his leading in a way that equalizes the tensions between great compassion and righteous conviction, between mercy and justice. How Frodo integrated his difficult experiences in the quest of the Ring prepared him for this moment of paradoxical impact as the leader of the Hobbits in their quest for survival.

It’s unfortunate that this final task of the four Hobbits is not shown in Peter Jackson’s film trilogy, but its depiction in Tolkien’s books is profound. We find that once evil has been removed and peace restored to the Shire, it has taken a deep toll on Frodo. He mostly retreats to his home to write the account of all that happened. When his time comes years later, he leaves the Shire for the Grey Havens, to take a ship to Valinor, an eternal land that Tolkien uses to depict the Blessed Realm of heaven. And at this final parting, Frodo shares some wabisabi-ish statements with his faithful friend Samwise:

… I tried to save the Shire, and it has been saved, but not for me. It must often be so, Sam, when things are in danger: someone has to give them up, lose them, so that others may keep them. But you are my heir: all that I had and might have had I leave to you.

You will be the Mayor, of course, as long as you want to be, and the most famous gardener in history; and you will read things out of the Red Book, and keep alive the memory of the age that is gone, so that people will remember the Great Danger and so love their beloved land all the more. (Frodo to Samwise, The Return of the King ~ Book VI, Chapter 9: “The Grey Havens.”)

As a member of the older generation, I find these to hold the essence of that kind of Kingdom wabisabi work that we find ourselves in the midst of doing: Preserve what needs to be remembered, but to leave the next generation with flexibility to transform their landscape as they find it, and to extend our story with their own. So, in that quest to transfer Kingdom reins to next generations, how will we let our Holy Father, His Son, and His Spirit work in our lives to redeem the melancholy we experience in the transition from modern to postmodern and beyond?

I started up blogging on April 1, 2003, mostly because the good people leading the WabiSabi event in Austin, Texas, felt I needed to. That event was to bring together polar opposites and maintain the paradox in order to bridge the gaps between older generations with younger, men and women, emerging paradigms with conventional. Afterwards, some of the key organizers told me enough talk, now write. They included Andrew Jones, Shannon Hopkins, and Jessica Stricker. A lot of others encouraged along the way that first year or so especially, including The Austin Gang and The Dallas Gang. It may have seemed an odd endeavor at first for me. But, in retrospect, I’m very glad that I stuck with it.

It never became about being in The Top 250 Christian Blogs. I knew/know my blogs are not designed to be hipster and popular. Mostly they’re for church leaders and social entrepreneurs who are just plain tired of the conventional paradigms and ministries structures, and also tired of more deconstruction of them. I have focused on practical help for when readers are ready to start (re-)constructing a preferred future. So, blogging became about three key things for me:

1. To capture the questions I was having … and I do mostly work from questions. In fact, about 15 years ago, I was introduced when giving a guest lecture on culture and contextualization as one who was “working on answers to questions that no one else was asking yet.” And most of my questions the past 20 years have been about culture, contextualization, organizational systems, and the missional movement as the best hope for a balanced and preferrable future.
2. To process ideas that I was thinking about, with the odd notion that if I was thinking about a topic just maybe others were and they might be interested in what I had to say. That started out mostly with my own peeps, but a few ripples went out from there and other people found something intriguing to chew on in one or more of my blogs.
3. To be generous as possible with whatever giftings I’d been given. This was really something that Andrew Jones has always stressed in blogging, and it’s something I’ve seen embodied as a lifestyle of missional stewardship by Andrew and Debbie Jones and their family. Their gracious hospitality and being people of peace left its mark on my spirit, and I am grateful to them for that – and just for being wonderful friends since, well, the last millennium.

Sometime soon I’ll be reposting my very first post and its introduction, from the first week of April 2003. It was “The Frodo Syndrome,” and the topic was the melancholy that people on both sides of the divide experience in the shifting of paradigms from modern to post-modern friendly, and generational leaders from Builders and Boomers to Busters and Beyonders. This was written the month of the Austin WabiSabi event. And maybe I’ll also post some other analysis pieces about things I’ve learned from my blogging experiences. Til then, I’ll leave you with some Top 5 and Top 10 lists that capsulize some of my thoughts and findings from looking at 10 years of blogging.

Meanwhile, thanks for dropping by, hope you find something of interest here, and please add your comments to this post!

~ brad/futuristguy

Five Pieces of Advice About Blogging

1. Your blog needs to match who you are, even if it means a micro-blog for people with a special interest or particular reading level, or multi-blogs to express more of who you are. I’ve created nearly 20 blogs in 10 years, and 8 are still going – 5 are mine and 3 were to help out friends. All 8 have very specific readerships – missional movement, specific movie/media interests, culture and contextualization, identifying systems that are spiritually abusive.
   • Futuristguy
   • Harry Potter Collector Notes
   • Lord of the Rings Collector Notes
   • Max Headroom Notes
   • Opal Design Systems
   • BGBC Defamation Lawsuit Archive
   • Grenier Defamation Lawsuit Archive
   • PBC Silent No More

2. It takes long to write short. Many of my articles are dense because that’s how they exit my brain and it takes too long to edit them into multiple smaller pieces. But, to write something that can use a sound editing than to write nothing and leave a void of silence. And I am a research writer, doing “primary source” writing from an insider activist perspective – not simply digesting the ideas/blog posts/articles/books of someone else. It’s hard to write when it’s original material, especially if it is responding to questions others aren’t asking very often yet.

3. Be generous, because we are connected. We get ideas from others; we need to give ideas to others. Share as much as you feel comfortable with, and maybe push yourself to give 5% more.

4. Virtual communities can become important sources of encouragement, fellowship, and discernment. So, participate at least occasionally with others in online experiments and experiences. It has opened up new ideas and new friendships for me by collaborating on unique online experiences like: the Missional Synchroblog and the Missional Order Group in 2008. The Missional Tribe experiment in about 2009-2010. Barb Orlowski’s doctoral research Spiritual Abuse Survey in 2008 that led to my blogging here and elsewhere on spiritual abuse recovery from 2008-now. Connecting with Peggy from OR and Oz mates-down-under Matt and Mike through co-commenting on Alan Hirsch’s blog, and then all of us forming The Virtual Abbey. I wouldn’t have survived IRL without these vIRtuaL peeps …

5. You don’t have to continue every blog you start, but it is good to persevere a while and see where each one takes you. Same with reading other people’s blogs that fit with your interests. Invest yourself by contributing through thoughtful commenting. Help create online learning communities of participation instead of celebrity consumption.

Top 10 Articles (average hits per year since posted)

1. Seven Mountains Movement / Dominionism (2008) – 2,000 hits per year
2. Key Transitions in Church Systems in the next 10 to 15 Years (2007) – 600
3. Frank Viola’s Three Questions on the Meaning of Missional (2008) – 550
4. Reflections on Malignant Ministries and God’s Mercies Thereafter (2012) – 450
5. Veteran’s Day 2011 ~ And “Buddy Poppies” (2011) – 400
6. Frank Herbert’s Dune and the Uses/Abuses of Power and Foresight (2011) – 360
7. Recovery from Spiritual Abuse: Part 1 – Five Personal Lessons from My Surviving Toxic Leaders (2008) – 300
8. Willow Creek REVEAL #1 (2007) – 200
9. Kingdom Leadership After Lakeland: Part 1 – Discernment and the Costly Descent into Darkness (2008) – 160
10. Parallel Culture becoming Counter-culture (2008) – 125 [currently removed for editing]

Top 10 Tutorial Pages (total number of hits)

1. Harry Potter Notes – 3,000 hits total
2. About Opal Design Systems Research and Development – 1,500
3. Learning Styles – 700
4. Transformational Teamwork – 500
5. Transformational Index – 500
6. Quadruple Bottom Line – 500
7. Quadruple Bottom Line Reconfigurations – 450
8. Cultural Curriculum Project – 400
9. Interpolators – 380
10. Trajectory-a – 300

Top 5 Fun Feedbacks on “futuristguy” ~ in person and online

1. “I love to talk with Brad – in short doses!” (L.)
2. “I come to your blog and read til my head hurts.” (J.)
3. “Me too!” (brad/futuristguy)
4. “I’ll be back.” (A.)
5. “…  I look for your comments on [spiritual abuse survivor] blogs, your crisp, clear thinking not only puts issues into perspective, you motivate. Thank you …” (BD)

Top 10 Most Curious Internet Searches By Which People Found Their Way To “futuristguy”

1. coffee fractal organization
2. will we ever be able to “breed superhumans”
3. are people who have adhd polymathic
4. who is blogging dangerously
5. the spiritual meaning of chickadees
6. hintergrundbilder ornamente
7. tweezers analogy for pastors
8. woo hoo Naomi
9. is there any recovery from a seared conscience
10. messianic cause of sexual addiction
11. [BONUS] i am bored that’s why

Winner: Oddest Search Route Leading to a  futuristguy Blog:

• how to evangelize a cryogenic [to my now defunct RadoxodaR blog]. My thought: “Now, that would make an interesting FAQ on someone’s site … not sure I wanna respond though.”

Part Six: When Collaboration Just Won’t Work Well: Operating Systems of Legalism or License Instead of Liberty

Overview of Part Six

In Part Five we looked at five different ways of processing information – all of which have a unique realm of application to imperatives and principles and paradoxes in Scripture. I gave some initial analysis to show how those five epistemologies hold values that can keep us on track with liberty and freedom in Christ, or veer us off toward legalism (being rule-bound where Scripture isn’t) or license (being without bounds where Scripture is). In Part Six, we’ll conclude that exploration of legalism, license, and liberty.

Some Core Characteristics of Legalism, License, and Liberty

Systems for individual Christian living, and for living life together as Christians, really do sort themselves out into three basic approaches: legalism, license, and liberty. They’re “operational systems” because they capsulize our strategies, structures, and methods for the ways we operate in our everyday interactions. Here’s some of what those look like.

LEGALISM. In legalism, the individual Christian relies on external sources for how to be right and do right. These sources include authority figures and codes of behavior. The overall thinking in legalism is black-and-white. Thus, what are biblically considered to be “wisdom decisions” (where there is no specific command on what we are required to do) are collapsed into moral requirements or become dictated decisions of leaders.

We’re led to believe that we must follow these in order to stay in right alignment with the (supposed) authority structure ordained by God. (For instance, it is a true moral imperative spelled out in the New Testament that Christians should marry Christians. However, the spouse you choose is your own wisdom decision, not a pastor’s realm to dictate to you.)

Even if one’s motivation is righteous in wanting to please God and do “what’s right,” in legalism the only empowerment to follow the rules and the rulers typically comes from fear – fear of failure, fear of disappointing our leaders or God, fear of punishment. We should instead be relying on the Holy Spirit. Yet, the Holy Spirit does not empower followers of Christ to carry out the Law by means of the flesh; they are antagonistic to each other (Galatians 3:23-26; Romans 5-6-7).

When groups of legalists get together, they form communities of coercion through compliance. They are in bondage to rules and regulations (which runs on guilt if we do wrong), and they are in bondage to rulers and regulators (which runs on fear of those in power). And OF COURSE there are huge problems with sin in congregations of legalism, because, just as Scripture calls it in Romans 7:14-25, the Law stirs up sin – but the Law empowers nothing in terms of Christlike transformation. Legalism is impotent to instigate, empower, or sustain heart-level change. Sadly, many disciples think legalism is spiritual when in fact, it disconnects us from responsiveness to God, and plugs us into those who rule over us.

LICENSE. In license, the individual Christian follows whatever he/she thinks best, regardless of what the Bible may say. Too often, this can end up being just his/her fleshly desires. There are no internal or external restraints – at least, none are acknowledged or accepted. He or she is leading a life of hedonism, gratifying self under the guise of relying on God’s grace.

When I say “gratifying self,” that doesn’t mean it’s all such overt sin and immorality. License can also manifest in amorality. I remember my first college sociology course, studying anomie, which can be described as a state of being with no guidelines or social norms. That’s similar to the term antinomian, which literally means “against law.” And what passes as “following options and inspiration” may all sound good, as with the slogan of the Bohemians in the movie Moulin Rouge: “Truth, Beauty, Freedom, Love.” But, underneath, self-idolatry always leads from brokenness to even greater brokenness, and both individuals and communities are harmed thereby.

I’ve been in a church where key leaders functioned with no rules other than their own whims. It’s like they were addicted to their own ideas, and that made it turn out to be utter chaos for everyone! Nothing was ordered or predictable. Ultimately, that made it an unsafe, unhealthy place to try to be a disciple who follows Jesus. Instead, parishioners were jerked around by the latest, greatest, short-term scheme of the pastor. Eventually, it imploded, and a lot of people were harmed in the process. Have you ever had to endure that kind of chaotic, out-of-bounds church or ministry? If so, how did it affect your faith, your growth, and your relationships?

Licentious behavior takes advantage of God’s grace, and acts as if Christ is nothing and the Holy Spirit is absent. It becomes like the Old Testament days of the Judges where “everyone did right in their own eyes” (Judges 17:6; 21:25) or even “followed a multitude to do evil” (Exodus 23:2). Whether the overall tone of license is immorality or amorality – still, the world (culture), the flesh, and the Devil all are default authorities in the life of a reputed Christian who is not following the disciplined life of a disciple of Christ.

When groups of licentious people dominate a society, that society is said to be in a “state of decadence.” These are communities of coercion and control through (ironically) lack of self-control. They are in bondage to themselves (which runs on lack of guilt, shame, or fear) and what they produce together is typically chaos. Even if there isn’t such overt hedonism in a church community, it can still run on a no-rules basis and perhaps eventually implode by succumbing to corrosion by chaos from the inside out.

LIBERTY. In biblical liberty, there is the paradox of both freedom and responsibility. The individual Christian is free to discern and decide what to do – self-determination – even if he or she willfully chooses to do wrong. I know there are a lot of people who don’t like that reality. I don’t … wouldn’t it just all be easier if we all conformed to righteousness? But – we’re saints yet sinners. We’re image-bearers yet broken. And the truth is – all Christians are believer-priests; there is no intermediary between us and God, and this includes any authoritarian leader who tries to dictate what we must do. We must decide for ourselves what we will do with the grace that has been gifted to us in Christ, and stand accountable.

And yet, it isn’t just all about us. True liberty must go beyond the concept of individual “soul competency,” which, in the extreme, can quickly degenerate into self-indulgent individualism and antinomianism. Instead, we need to see that freedom in Christ also includes being motivated by the Spirit and God’s Word to do what is best for the Body of Christ – not merely what might be desirable for one’s self – and yet not give in to mere conformity seemingly for the sake of supposed “unity.”

We truly are interconnected. There truly are ripple effects of consequences to others from actions we may think are done alone. This is one thing about “human systems” that the culture of the postmodern world seems to get, whereas the conventional modernist evangelical church … not so much. Too often, we treat the Body of Christ (both local and universal) as a congregating of otherwise isolated individuals who have a common interest, rather than an interconnected community of people with a common purpose to “live our faith and share our life.”

So, true liberty recognizes those connections between our self with God and one another. Together, we as disciples are the Body of Christ. Each individually and all together we are “in Christ Jesus,” a prominent term that, with a few variations, is used over 130 times in the New Testament, according to 19th-century preacher/teacher A.T. Pierson. (This is a small book I read almost 40 years ago as a young Christian in college, and it had a significant impact on my thinking.)

Liberty relies on internal empowerment through the Holy Spirit’s enlivening of truth in us to learn and do what is morally and ethically right, and also to make decisions that are wise. In a freedom-oriented church, there is external equipping by others, through teaching, insights, and the role-modeling of a life well lived. There is discovering one’s unique design, including spiritual giftedness, and developing those contributions so that Church and Kingdom can flourish.

Liberty in Christ is characterized by exercising discernment, responsible decision-making, and living with the consequences and connections of one’s decisions. In liberty, we do not enter or exit relationships lightly. In a phrase, Living in Christian liberty means striving for biblical balance and for maturity, individually and together. Neither balance or maturity or community are available through the rule-bound systems of legalism or the out-of-bounds systems of license. Disciples who live in liberty are bond-slaves to Christ and walk in alignment with the Holy Spirit’s leading (Galatians 5; 1 Peter 2:16) and along the way of Jesus with one another.

WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT? Now we really are getting down to the nitty-gritty. I’ve tried to show how these operating systems directly affect our discipleship systems. I’ve looked mostly at how they affect us as individuals. And, without directly saying so, I’ve tried to show how they can shift our identity into idolatry – whether through legalism or license – and suggested some implications for how they impact others through us.

If legalism and license can do that to us as individuals, imagine how they could affect us as interconnected communities! Think of how they could sink any of the six post-Evangelicalism streams from connecting into a missional movement … or how they could corrode a liberty-oriented movement from the inside out through implanting destructive recombinant DNA into the spiritual core of the would-be collaboration, and multiplying it as a toxic movement.

This is serious stuff because the results of these often-invisible but irreconcilable differences could be disastrous! And to those potentially poisonous possibilities we’ll continue this series in Part Seven.

The Fragmentation of Evangelicalism
and the Precipitation of the Missional Movement

Part Five: When Collaboration Just Won’t Work Well: “Irreconcilable Differences” on Operating Systems for Discipleship

Overview of Parts Five and Six

In Part Four, we looked at elements that potentially set us up for “irreconcilable differences,” when it comes to being part or partners in some kind of movement or ministry collaboration. I introduced epistemology (information processing styles) and axiology (values) as the core of the ministry systems and cultures we create. The key idea it led to was this: If we’re missing some biblical values, or our values are anti-biblical, we can easily end up with beliefs and behaviors, and lifestyles and cultures that go against Scripture

In Parts Five and Six, we will look at the “operational framework” – the sets of maco-level principles that guide our everyday beliefs and behaviors, interests and interactions. If we’re off center biblically in our epistemology and axiology, we’ll be even farther off in our operational framework, either in the direction of legalism or license instead of true biblical liberty and the freedom for which Christ set us free.

Epistemology and Our Operational Framework of Legalism, License, or Liberty

FIVE EPISTEMOLOGIES. I believe the most comprehensive set of biblical values comes from integrating all five different types of epistemology – all of which are found in Scripture, but each of which is applied within very specific realms.

Analysis – Either/Or. This mindset divides things – such as, this from that, right from wrong, obedience from disobedience. It fits the realm of moral imperatives, where we either follow after or flake out on God’s commandments.

Synthesis – Or. The imagination generates all kinds of options, creating all sorts of scenarios of how the future could or should be. It fits the realm of wisdom decisions, those issues where the Bible does not give us a specific command and so we are free to choose, and hopefully we make the wisest/best decision instead of so-so or bad decisions. To restate, these decisions are not matters of moral obedience (right or wrong) but of wise discernment and decisions (wise or unwise).

Symbiosis – And. The emotions drive us to connect with others through a God-given desire for friendships and community, as well as a God-reflecting desire for justice in society. It fits the realm of social ethics, where there are a number of biblical commandments (such as the many “one another” passages in the New Testament) but also a number of wisdom-decision practices for our interactions.

Paradox – Both/And. What A.J. Gossip (see Part 4) called the “aesthetic feeling,” we might otherwise call the soul. It acts like a hub for simultaneously considering how multiple things connect together in dynamic tension, rather than dividing them from one another to analyze them in isolation. For instance, through the aesthetic feeling, we consider the seen and the unseen, and we reflect on the abstract principles of thought or emotions that arise within concrete experiences we have. Paradox fits the realm of appropriate “mysticism” and discernment, where we reflect and speculate upon how multiple layers of existence interconnect and interact. This is the core perspective behind a book many have benefited from, Experiencing God: observing what is happening in the lives of our self and others, asking God how He is working in them, and cooperating with Him to make a difference. That kind of appropriate spiritual speculation involves us knowing what we see and experience, but also seeking to see what God knows and how to interpret our providential experiences from His perspective.

Integration – all forms in right realms and in balance. This involves conscious decisions of our volition to embrace and explore all four core kinds of epistemologies and keep them in their right places. It is the central issue of choice. If we do not seek to integrate all that God has for us to be and do, however will we grow in Christlikeness? There will be gaps that need to be filled in, and excesses than need to be filed off.

WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT? Difficulties emerge in our beliefs and behaviors, our organizations and cultures, when we don’t match the right epistemology principle to a problem we’re having. In other words, the integration of our life gets off track from both the boundaries and opportunities God presents us in His Word.

Here’s an example. The New Testament commands us to grow in grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. It also gives us general indicators of that maturing process. For instance, demonstrated skill in “spiritual warfare” is a sign of spiritual adolescence, according to 1 John 2:13-14. In Hebrews 5:14, a sign of advancing maturity is found in the ability to take in “meaty” aspects of God’s Word, because we have exercised our “discernment muscles” to tell the difference between good and evil.

However, NOWHERE does the New Testament provide us with a step-by-step schedule of rules for how to achieve maturity, or on what timeline. Therefore, the steps we take, or that we suggest to others as their discipler/mentor, are in the realm of wisdom options – not moral imperatives. This means that anyone who creates hard-and-fast formulas for spiritual growth has crossed the line into legalism – putting rules and burdens upon Christians that He Himself never did.

And, as the book of Romans repeatedly shows, the Law actually prevents people from maturing. It keeps us in a state of childhood, where we have to be told everything to do and are not allowed to decide for ourselves (or bear the full adult consequences of our actions). This core epistemology misapplication of treating wisdom choices as if there were codes of commands for them instead has been a key issue in every spiritually abusive church and ministry I’ve ever experienced.

And the opposite problem of flipping moral commands into personal options is a core misapplication I’ve seen in many antinomian (no-boundaries) ministry situations to count. I’ve often found it in churches that run by chaos instead of by compliance. In the antinomian reversal, people want to redefine biblical commands as mere options: “Oh, that’s not really a sin, it’s just a difference in the ways God’s made us!” or “Oh, that’s not a problem, that’s a ‘gift’.” It just flips everything so that anything goes.

So … let’s assume for the moment that the missional movement is one place where there is an attempt to keep all five forms of epistemology active and integrate them in a balanced way. In other words, missional disciples seek for a third way of true freedom in Christ and liberty.

• What happens when there are individuals, groups, denominations, etc. – either from inside the missional stream or any of the five other stream – that are committed to either legalism, or antinomianism (i.e., “license”) instead of biblically grounded freedom in Christ?
• How can they integrate into a movement of liberty?
• Can they collaborate?
• Or is this an “irreconcilable difference” that blocks unification and perhaps collaboration?

And I believe that blockage is where we find ourselves, when it comes to the conflict of differences in “welcoming or rejecting” and “affirming, transforming, conforming, or condemning.” Before we get to that, we need to do some additional exploration into overall systems of discipleship. Stay tuned for that part of the journey in Part Six …

Part Four: When Collaboration Just Won’t Work Well: The Way We Process Information and What We Value Create “Irreconcilable Differences”

Overview of Parts 4, 5, and 6

This series has looked at aspects of the uncontrollable process we find ourselves in as a result of a global shift in paradigms and cultures. Some forces in the process work to fragment the old, others to reformulate the new. To my thinking, this has resulted in six streams in the post-Evangelical vein. Other forces, like the power of paradox, help us consider why the missional stream has more potential for drawing in a wider range of elements from other sources to create a more comprehensive structure and a more dynamic trajectory.

In the next installments (yes, it’s grown past four parts), we’ll look at some powerful principles that seem to have the opposite effect from paradox. In brief, they don’t provide a safe place for people to land while they sift through the complexity to figure out if they fit. Instead, some variations in these sets of frameworks set up conditions and pressure people to decide if they fit before they enter. Some don’t go anywhere once people have entered.

So, as to potential collaborations, they represent “irreconcilable differences” in terms of entry and trying to merge into the missional movement, or trajectory and trying to collaborate and journey toward a common goal, or destiny and what goals they would value. Even if they all apply the label of “missional” to themselves, it doesn’t mean they’d survive as a long-term part or partner in a coherent missional movement.

After we look at elements that potentially set us up for “irreconcilable differences” (in Part Four), we’ll look at two such sets of frameworks. The first one (in Part Five) captures a range of ways to set up our operating systems for discipleship, based in part on some views about freedom in Christ, personal sanctification, and responsibility toward others. Do our systems promote being bound by rules (legalism), freedom in Christ (liberty), or being out-of-bound with no rules (license)?

The second set (in Part Six) focuses on different ways we create the internal culture of our church or ministry, and our stances toward external cultures in society. Specifically, we’ll consider whether we’re welcoming or rejecting of specific kinds of people; and whether we affirm, transform, conform, or condemn them. Also, do we isolate or insulate ourselves from the culture at large, try to control it, try to engage it, or end up absorbing it? How do these approaches affect our trajectories, as those seeking to follow Christ and make a difference in our world? How do they affect the possibilities our post-Evangelical stream joining into a movement?

Before getting into the details of these two sets of systems, there’s an important point to cover on why I’m looking at them in what may be a very different way from the usual analysis.

Irreconcilable Differences – Based in Theology? Or in Something Deeper?

Differences like these APPEAR to be theological, but actually, I think they go to something far deeper – to epistemology (information processing modes) and to axiology (values). I’ve long felt that values are what drive us, not beliefs. If we don’t value something, we don’t do anything with it. In talking about post-evangelical streams and the missional movement, this is where the magnetism and repulsion are. Values guide how we configure our theological principles, and values determine whether “missional” is merely a new set of programs and a label, or a genuine paradigm and a lifestyle of “Live your faith. Share your life.” (Hat Tip to Brother Maynard for that essence-of-missional slogan!)

For instance, do we value analysis? We’re more likely to create systematic theologies. Do we value closure (a function of even the deeper epistemology of black-and-white thinking)? We’re more likely to create or gravitate toward a clear and precise and comprehensive theology that explains the maximum amount of material and lays out all our decisions for us. And while these approaches may seem “missional,” they don’t actually work all that well in complex situations that are often cross-cultural. When we spell out too much, our system often imposes rules where the Bible does not. And so we end up taking away areas of decision-making that were meant to be part of the discipleship growth process.

These different kinds of very deep guiding principles are what reside at the core source of entire paradigms. And despite what may look like common ground on the surface of things … culture, behaviors, lifestyles, issues of concern, collaboration style … it’s what’s deep in that core which drives “irreconcilable differences.”

In a later post, I want to tackle one of the more complex issues that has the paradoxical potential to draw people from different backgrounds into the missional movement – those who value both personal morality and social responsibility. But also has the paradoxical power to repulse people out of it, if they value only one or the other.

Because this is complex, I need to build layer by layer to get to the actual “Big Discussion” itself. So, I hope you’ll stay with me as I look at some component concepts that will eventually let us get to some very important issues that have the most probability for creating “irreconcilable differences” whereby countless individuals and groups may opt-out of the missional movement.

The Epistemology Piece

“EPISTEMOLOGY.” While many people may not be familiar with this term, they likely have experienced the concept and will intuitively understand some things about it. Epistemology is about thinking … not the content of WHAT people think, but HOW they process information – what they integrate their thinking around. For instance:

I am very analytical and mind-oriented. It’s why I process information in details. Huge. Amounts. Of. Detail. I can describe concrete objects as if I were a human Cat Scan machine, or break down a concept into many component parts. At its core, analytical thinking integrates around an “either/or” mindset, always dividing things into parts, and categorizing it as EITHER this OR that.

Some people are more synthesis and imagination-oriented. Ask them to give you some options for this or that event, and they’ll spin out lists of imaginative possibilities – probably until you tell them, “Enough!” At its core, synthetic thinking integrates around a mindset of “or” – the options include this, OR that, OR the other, OR the other other, OR …

Others are more symbiotic and emotions-oriented, and they will clue in to people’s emotions, how individuals and groups of people are being treated or mistreated, those kinds of relational concerns. At its core, symbiotic thinking integrates around a mindset of “and” – bringing together this person AND that person, AND that resource, AND that support network, AND …

Some people are more paradoxical and aesthetics-oriented, looking at layers of complexity in a situation, or looking at both a concrete, real-world experience and the abstract concept it embodies or implies. (I’m one of those also, which goes to show that an individual can integrate thinking in more than just one way.) At it’s core, paradoxical thinking is analogical in the sense of holding BOTH abstract AND concrete in tension together instead of dividing them and emphasizing either one or the other.

All people are integrational and volition-oriented. To some degree, we all choose to bring elements of all these other different kinds of thinking processes, and their products, into who we are and what we do.

You might be thinking, This doesn’t exactly look familiar … where did he get that? It started out of my studies in cross-cultural linguistics and the technical discipline of “discourse analysis” (the “glue” that pastes thoughts together in a coherent way – to people from a specific language group). And then there is a long story associated with this framework, but the short version is that it emerged from a church planting situation. There were participants from very different cultures that strongly embodied each of these various information processing approaches. As they found themselves in conflict with the lead pastor, they left when it became clear their voice would not be heard and their contributions (other than “tithes”) would be rejected. At the end, only those who processed life and theology and values the same way as the pastor remained. And then there was this amazing quote that someone gave me after all the above took place:

A basic trouble is that most Churches limit themselves unnecessarily by addressing their message almost exclusively to those who are open to religious impression through the intellect, whereas … there are at least four other gateways – the emotions, the imagination, the aesthetic feeling, and the will – through which they can be reached. ~ A.J. Gossip (1873-1954)

(If you’re interested in more information on these five epistemology styles and how I developed them, see the Paradigm Framework section of this blog post on Paradigm Profiling in the Missional Zone, and also this tutorial on Learning Styles.)

WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT? Because epistemology leads to values (axiology). And our epistemology and values are what drive our theology, far more than we think. I know that is a huge assumption, but I do believe it’s accurate. Think about it … and consider this set of questions, which I’ve heard used many times to illustrate the point:

• Who thinks that physical exercise is important? (This is, what do you believe about the subject.)
• Who here exercises regularly? (If you don’t value exercise, you won’t do it, even if you supposedly “believe” it is important.)

So, if we’re missing some biblical values, or our values are anti-biblical, we can easily end up with beliefs and behaviors, and lifestyles and cultures that go against Scripture. And that gives great importance to the issues of how we process information and what we value as a result. And despite what we might SAY we believe, these deep, hidden drivers of our lifestyles may bring us into conflict with people we SEEM to have common ground with, based on what they say.

So – can you see the direction this is going?

Next post – how the ways we think and what we value affect the shapes of our “operational systems” for discipleship. In other words, the everyday ways we connect with God and interact with others.

Part Three: Principles of Paradox, and Magnetic Attractions
and Repulsions in the Making of a “Missional Movement”

Part One looked at how different people have been viewing the fragmentation and re-formation of the “missional” movement. Part Two expanded on how there are six streams in what seems to be the next generation after “evangelical” – Emergents, Progressives, Evangelicals, Emergings, Neo-Reformeds, and Missionals – and how they seem to be identify with the “missional movement.”

As I mentioned in an earlier part of this series, I have been in all six streams (or their earlier prototypes) during my Christian experience. By that, I don’t mean just an occasional visit now and again, but extended periods with years of participation. As I’ve experienced a stream by immersing in it, I’ve come to see the pluses and minuses of it, and made adjustments. I think missional will end that series. It seems to integrate more of the pluses of all the other streams and fewer of the minuses. It’s complex, but it makes sense to me. Actually, I’ve been more missional than I realized for nearly 40 years … so, no wonder I didn’t fit in so well in so very many ministry situations before!

And since missional is my home base for “faith and practice,” I’m curious about how elements within these streams might connect or disconnect in a larger missional movement. So, my new questions arise (as always) more from reflections on concrete experiences I’ve had as an insider in them – not from reading books on abstract theory about how movements work or how things should be in the “ideal” church. And right now, I’m wrestling mostly with questions about where various streams will find their entry points into marrying with the missional movement, and what points or perspectives will prove barriers.

Here in Part Three, we’ll explore how “missional” often equates to a “third way” of paradox – those situations where polar opposites co-exist, and on the surface of things that doesn’t seem to make sense, but underneath it actually does. (I need to tell you up front why it’s paradox is crucial to understand, and that’s, because the ongoing worldwide paradigm shift is moving us toward paradox as the dominant way of processing life. If we don’t “get it” soon about paradox, we’re sunk. We won’t be able to navigate the present or the future.) We’ll also look at how paradoxes create “missional magnetic impulses” of attraction and repulsion that affect whether these streams can form a movement in the long run or not. In Part Four, we’ll look at how various discipleship systems and stances toward culture typical within the six streams compare and contrast, and provide either bridges or barriers for collaboration. So … take it slow, here we go!

Introducing Paradox as the Hub for a Missional “Movement”

The missional stream has gradually drawn in individuals and groups originally found in the other five streams in the post-evangelical world. That’s a natural part of the fragmentation and re-formation process. There is something they resonate with that draws them into a missional mindset – or helps them discover they already were missional but didn’t label themselves as such before. But what in particular makes missional have a wide appeal, even when those draw toward it can’t find complete agreement with it?

Perhaps the key thing is that the missional paradigm is very paradoxical. It has a strong “both/and” way of processing information. That gives it the possibility of having a larger base to work from – because it doesn’t have to choose EITHER this OR that polar opposite when Scripture gives a base embracing both. It’s more holistic, more systems oriented. Here are some examples of these missional paradoxes:

• Missional has strong stances on both personal morality and social ethics, so it doesn’t really fit the traditional dichotomy of either conservative or liberal.
• It is comfortable working in an in-between zone where individuals are always seen in the context of social connections – so it is neither strict individualism or communalism.
• It sees disciples as being sojourner guests in a culture who also act as ambassador servants to/in their host culture as in-person demonstrations of the Kingdom of Heaven incarnating here on earth. So, it is neither isolationist (separating itself from culture as if we were not called to serve) or dominionist (trying to control culture as if we were not called to sojourn).

Do those parallel tracks make sense, even though they don’t typically appear in the modernist Church as it has been for the last century especially? As I see it, missional paradox often looks like a “third way” that bypasses a lot of the conventional labels. But it also gives a more balanced and participatory framework. I like to think of paradox as creating a large “LEGO hub” that can serve as a landing site for many different kinds of aspects from other streams without it being too contradictory. It can host a more comprehensive and more coherent movement precisely because of paradox.

The Problems of Paradox …

However, many people have trouble navigating paradoxes. After all, the Western world of the last 500 years has been focused on an “either/or” paradigm – which is about as opposite as you can get to a both/and perspective. Either/or wants to divide things apart to analyze and categorize them; both/and wants to hold things together to see the relationships in systems. Either/or reduces things to their component parts; both/and keeps them in their whole-being state.

Another way to consider paradoxes is as those conundrums where two things look like they should not co-exist, but in fact they do. Physics, for instance, has light as involving both particles and waves. Biology has natural systems where processes of living and dying go on simultaneously. Theological paradox gives us a way to understand that Jesus Christ is both God and human yet without sin. It’s the way that allows us to live within the tension of being both sinners and saints, who are broken image bearers yet shining shards simultaneously, and capable of both great good and horrific harm.

And when I talk about tension, that is a crucial point. Either/or demands that we pick one polar opposite as if they were options; both/and requires us to reflect on both opposites together and act accordingly. To be holistic and paradoxical in an either/or world is just as excruciating as it will be to live as a dissector and reductionist in a both/and world. The way the world is changing toward paradox will lead to relief for those who’ve been afflicted by the dividing pressures of modernity, and to affliction for those who been relieved by postmodernity of their prior position of cultural dominance.

A final note here: To be clear as possible, paradox is NOT the fusion of all things into a single essence that collapses all differences – rather, it is a view that sees things that may be distinct but not separate, two polar opposites co-existing in one person or thing. It is neither Eastern or Western, but far closer to a biblical Hebrew mindset.

So, the sooner we understand the biblical basis for paradox and get this principle on our spiritual radar, the more we will recognize it in complementary truths from Scripture that we may have thought were contradictory. And then the more accurately we can study and “exegete” our emerging paradoxical host cultures in order to “share our life and live our faith” more fully and faithfully in them.

Klyne Snodgrass on Paradox and Living “Between Two Truths”

Speaking of biblical, let me share the best quote I’ve found to explain biblical paradox and living in this state of tension. This quote is not easy reading, but I do believe it explains and illustrates paradox relatively well. Please read it carefully for what it does say and what it does not say. Read it several times, see what you think it means and doesn’t mean … and from there, we’ll conclude by looking at how paradox sets up a situation of both attraction to and repulsion from the missional mindset.

In the mid-1990s, I shared a book excerpt from Between Two Truths by Klyne Snodgrass for a newsletter to Christians involved in HIV/AIDS ministry work – certainly a ministry field filled with tensions of various kinds. I gave it a short introduction (included here) and then the quote:

Sooner or later, involvement in HIV ministry brings new tensions into our lives. Seemingly opposite, irreconcilable priorities nag and nibble away at us. Things like doing personal ministry involvement “versus” getting involved with social action on HIV-related issues. Or it heightens the contrast between two realities we already know but sometimes try to submerge: we are both sinner and saint.

How do we resolve such conundrums? What resources has God provided to live in the middle of these everyday situations that threaten at times to pull us apart?

Not all tensions are bad, says Klyne Snodgrass, who offers many helpful insights in his book, Between Two Truths: Living with Biblical Tensions (Zondervan, 1990, and reprinted more recently by Wipf & Stock) The following excerpt is from chapter 2, “A Framework for Tension,” in a section entitled, “Peaceful and Creative Tension.”

As C.F.D. Moule put it, the Christian faith is characterized by a “peaceful and creative tension.” The words, at first glance, do not seem to go together, but they accurately describe the New Testament message.

Tension in the Christian life is not like a tightrope where we must fear falling off either side. There would be no peace in that. A more appropriate image is a stringed instrument. Properly attached at the two right places, the instrument can be played. If a string is left loose, music cannot be produced. If stretched too tightly, the string will break.

Neither does such talk of tension in Christian living refer to anxiety, tenseness, or being destroyed by conflicting options. Nor is there reference to uncertainty, relativity, or straddling the fence. …

[In] the New Testament, the message of tension within the Christian faith is essentially a discussion of the grace of God. That is why the tension within the Christian faith is first of all peaceful. It is based on the grace of God that has been revealed in Christ. Here is the foundation for life.

Grace is never just pure gift, however; it is also a call to responsibility, and this is why the tension is creative.

Our peace has its own struggles. If grace tells us, “You are God’s child,” it also instructs us, “Now live like it.” We have for too long viewed faith as something we “got” at some point, but our relationship with God is a process of living with him. Therefore, the tensions we experience become the stage on which our faith is given creative expression. Working through our struggles and the complexities of life allows us to grow as individuals. …

[L]ife with Christ [isn't] a simplistic existence. Those who think they can encompass or master life in Christ are in for a surprise. As one person put it, Jesus is an inspiring and disturbing presence. He inspires us and comforts us, but he also takes us apart and disturbs us. God accepts us as we are, which is a source of great comfort. But soon, if we are at all attentive, his presence becomes a convicting and transforming power forcing change, sometimes even painful change. As that change is effected, we know once again the comfort of grace, but the process is not over. Again and again God comforts and disturbs; comforts and disturbs. …

Accepting tension allows us to relax and accept life as it is. … Accepting tension will not remove the competing forces, but it does allow us to tell the truth about our lives. Christian maturity, then, requires that we live honestly with biblical tensions.

I’ve not found anyone who says it better about paradox than Klyne Snodgrass does in this book. It helped me understand that for every God-given mandate there is empowerment. For every temptation, a way of escape. For every “embassy” He establishes, He gives fortitude to endure. As Klyne Snodgrass suggests, may we be doubly anchored and cinched up rightly tight so our “string” can “sing” for God’s glory!

Magnetic Attractions: Connecting from Streams into a Missional “Movement”

Okay – so, let’s assume that there are many in-between stances in missional that appear to be logical contradictions, but actually are paradoxes. So, if people from other streams are initially drawn into the missional paradigm, it is likely based in an attraction to a half-of-a-paradox position that is most similar to their home stream. Here is a set of basic examples I see where the five other streams find some degree of common ground with the missional movement.

• Emergents and Progressives tend to resonate more with the social transformation aspects found in the missional movement. They often notice organizational, systems forms of evil that lead to injustice, and they respond.
• Evangelicals and Emergings and YRRs (Neo-Reformeds) tend to resonate more with the personal salvation aspects of missional theology. They often notice personal problems people are having, and they respond.

Given the profiles I provided of these various streams in Part Two, what other points of connection or attraction do you see? (You didn’t think you’d get away with no homework, did you?)

Magnetic Repulsions: Disintegrating a Missional Movement back into Separate Streams

Some who previously considered themselves “missional” find they don’t really fit there, and are leaving. That’s also a natural process in the cycles of fragmentation and re-formation that go with a global paradigm shift.

And there are also various kinds of disagreement among these six streams. Many of the points of contention deal with a specific stance toward culture or on cultural issues. For instance:

• The missional movement typically demonstrates the parity (equal value) of men and women in the Kingdom.
• This contrasts with some groups that are more committed to gender complementarity (especially the Neo-Reformeds, often Evangelicals, and sometimes Emergings). Complementarianism holds that men and women have very different roles in home, church, and society, but the basic difference is that men are to lead and women are to respond. In some of the more concentrated versions, this view leads to patriarchy, where women are supposed to be subservient to men in all realms of life. This patriarchalism view seems more prevalent among Neo-Reformeds.
• Others hold to an egalitarian view (especially Progressives and Emergents), where men and women are equals with equal access and opportunity in terms of home, society, and ministry service.

Missional isn’t exactly a muddy middle way, but it seems to me there is a different emphasis. It is more general about men and women being peers in partnership for ministry service and in community, than about specific gender roles in home, church, and society (which easily lead into the same old debates over power politics of gender). I’d suggest it is possible to demonstrate gender parity, yet not be either a complementarian or an egalitarian. (For an example, see this sort post from David Fitch on Why I am Not an Egalitarian: Postmodernity Did it To Me.) Maybe that’s because the missional integration point is living out the Kingdom and ministry, not culture and politics. BUT the missional way often doesn’t coincide with what is “politically correct” for left or right, liberal or conservative. So, missional gender parity may not go far enough for the egalitarians’ tastes and it may go too far for the complementarians – and so set up an eventual repulsion away from missional for some individuals and groups.

Similar homework: Given the profiles in Part Two, what other possible points of disconnection could you see between various streams and missional paradoxy?

Key Points in Review

• Paradox is a “both/and” way of processing sets of issues or things that seem like they should be separate, but in reality are connected.
• This makes a paradoxical system more holistic … it keeps all the parts intact instead of dissected off.
• The postmodern global paradigm shift is moving us toward a more paradoxical mindset, so we need to at least understand it – and especially where it resonates with biblical principles and practices – even if we don’t fully embrace the emerging paradoxy.
• A paradoxical perspective creates the probability of both attractions and repulsions simultaneously to people who hold other views.

Last thought for this post: We are in difficult times. This paradigm shift turns things upside down for everyone. We find that our perspectives are incomplete. Our former touchstones of security and our positions of power disappear. We face culture shock, grief, and even depression from the stresses of change. Hopefully we can find grace toward both ourselves and others to learn how better to navigate the world as it now is …

Part Four concludes this series on the missional movement by focusing on possibilities for working together among various elements from the six streams. It will consider missional paradoxes of discipleship and culture, and then detail two sets of ministry approaches that seem to create more probability of fragmentation than collaboration. These include the set of (1) incompatible discipleship systems of welcoming and affirming, welcoming and mutually transforming, welcoming and conforming, and rejecting and condemning; and (2) incompatible cultural systems of legalism, liberty, and license.

Part Two: Six Streams in the “Missional Movement”

Missionary ~ Missional

A lot of individuals and groups use the term missional these days, but mean some vastly different things by it. For some, it’s about The Latest Program or add-on feature – a buzzword designed to attract people who are into what’s new and happening. For others, they seem to use it as a “big tent” concept for any group that holds to being something akin now that mirrors what evangelicalism was before.

For others (like myself), it’s the inverse of being a cross-cultural missionary where we’d go overseas, learn the language and culture, find the “people of peace,” and disciple them and others. Similarly but turned inside out, the missional-minded disciple moves in his/her own country where the Spirit leads, roots into a local neighborhood, listens and learns from the people right there, becomes a “person of peace” who welcomes all with respect and justice, and disciples others.

So, what sounds like group compatibility when we hear “missional” may actually turn out to be irreconcilable differences between underlying paradigms … It’s confusing, as the ways we perceive the world just aren’t the same, even if we’re using the same word to describe our approach.

As I said at the end of Part One, my work on analyzing streams within what was formerly known as evangelicalism is not based in book reports or reading the analysis of others. I ended up right in the middle of this shift. And, the way I’m “wired,” the confusion of people sounding in harmony but acting in dischord created big questions that I wanted to have answered as part of an even larger puzzle that I wanted to have solved. So, I’ll start off this post with a bit of history about how this paradigm shift has manifested itself over the past 20 years in the U.S. From there, I’ll lay out my perspective on the six streams that have shaken out of the “missional movement.” (Or, should I say, seem to be poured into it?)

Historical Background

An important book written during the early fragmentation of evangelicalism into streams is In Search of Authentic Faith: How Emerging Generations are Transforming the Church by Steve Rabey (Waterbrook Press, 2001). Rabey is a former Associated Press reporter. He is also one of the very few Boomers over 40 who participated in all the formative conferences in the GenX-emerging-postmodern ministry movement that was catalyzed around the Young Leaders Network. (Young Leaders was launched by Leadership Network and their first conference was in 1996.)

Rabey captures well the decade of shifts in the 1990s, and he highlights a range of people involved. This is particularly intriguing, because there was no way of knowing at the time that some of the more obscure people would potentially become Christian “celebrities” in their particular evangelical/missional stream, and that some of the seeming celebrities might fade into obscurity. Fascinating to read his research and conclusions, with a decade more of hindsight to evaluate now what he was seeing then!

So – back to the Young Leaders Network. This nationwide network was started by Leadership Network as a response both to (1) the changeover in leaders from Boomers to GenXers (or more accurately, to the “stained glass ceiling” that Boomers put in place to block Xers from leadership), and (2) the cultural changes from modernity to postmodernity. In those early days, this was usually called “GenX ministry,” then that morphed into “postmodern ministry,” and then was called “emerging ministry.” Young Leaders eventually and officially became called Emergent with their own site (Emergent Village) after a brief stint starting in April 2001 as an in-between network called Terra Nova. It focused on arts, justice, leadership, and theology, and those themes were integrated into Emergent.

Emergents, Progressives

Emergents have turned out to use (in my opinion) a more heavily deconstructive, theoretical approach to theologies and ministries that they see befitting the postmodern paradigm shift. In my experiences of the past 10 years since Emergent started, men and women who consider themselves as holistic, paradoxical, and missional have had a difficult time connecting with people in the Emergent movement. The dominant information processing styles between the two streams are quite different. Emergent’s emphases on abstract concepts, systematic theology, and dissection through deconstruction don’t sit particularly well with a missional emphasis on concrete action, organic systems, and transformation through reconstruction. Even though Emergent had a lot of the “right parts” (arts, justice, leadership, theology), those weren’t always integrated or cross-pollinated. I remember having and hearing critiques like, “Your art project was a separate installation from the rest of the leadership events – why was that? Do you use arts in your justice work, or do you promote justice in your leadership theory?”

Perhaps the biggest hang-up for Missionals is that Emergents seem to orbit around deconstruction and dialogue, so there may have been a lot of apparent activity but ultimately little forward trajectory. There was and is some common ground, though, in the willingness in both streams to be creative and experiment with ministry forms and structures. Also, Missionals and Emergents and Progressives all have an interest in social transformation as part of a Kingdom theology. Still, Emergent seems to have far more in common overall with Progressives and post-liberals – the next generations originally from a mainline church or otherwise liberal theological bent. These two streams seem to resonate on the views about specific political issues that relate with social transformation.

But I do have to agree, though, with something my friend Becky Garrison tweeted recently:

“@SarahNMoon: Progressive Christians more than any other group I’ve been a part of canNOT accept criticism. The worst at listening.”

Becky commented that this observation was “spot on.” And I’d say that I see a significant lack of listening as common in my experiences overall with Progressives, along with Emergents and Neo-Reformeds. Just sayin’ … It too often seems their minds are made up, and there is no room to dialogue. Which would mean there’s not necessarily room for productive collaboration. I find that ironic, as I hear Progressives and Emergents talk about change often enough, but don’t always seem to want to listen to those they think need to be changed. (I “get it.” I spent a number of years as a politically correct liberal – which doesn’t mean I’m now a politically correct conservative. I’m something else, a third-way “cultural creative” who doesn’t fit well in any polarized camp.)

Evangelicals, Emergings

And, speaking of change, that may be what Emergents and Progressives find as common ground with two other streams: the more classic post-Evangelicals and the more ministry-experiment-minded Emergings. Both the post-Evangelical and Emerging streams hold a lot in common with more mainstream evangelicalism helmed by the Builder and Boomer generations. But, both these kinds of “missional” Evangelicals and Emergings are generally more reliant on the changeover to GenX leaders and now are moving toward Millennials. They are also more culture-savvy and attempting to adjust at least some to be more contemporary in styles of worship and ministry.

A story that I think is relevant here comes from a discussion I had almost 15 years ago with someone I connected with at one of the Young Leader conferences in the late 1990s. My friend observed that East Coast GenXers/postmoderns seemed more willing to experiment with theology but not with church structures. Meanwhile, West Coast GenXers/postmoderns were the opposite – more willing to mess with ministry methods and structures but not experiment doctrinally very much.

So, in their own ways, Left and Right Coasts kept relative continuity with the overall heritage of evangelicalism – but with some “pomo upgrades.” In fact, sometimes these updated forms of evangelicalism refer to themselves as “vintage” churches, having enough continuity with the past to be comfortable, but enough orientation toward change to (hopefully) be survivable in the face of unavoidable global shifts.

It seems to me that Evangelicals and Emergings are more on the post-conservative end of the theological spectrum. They may also be more conservation-/continuity-minded in terms of church organizational structures. (For instance, more into hierarchical leadership pyramids than likely found on the more ecumenical and “flat structured leadership style” in the post-liberal wing of things.)

So, for those reasons, they may be relatively uncomfortable with the Progressives and Emergents. But can the “real Missional” maybe be a moderating influence to bring all of these together? That’s a good question, and Part Three will focus in on that – also potentially including Neo-Reformeds in the missional mix.

Neo-Reformeds

Another fragment from Young Leaders became what is often referred to now as the Young, Restless, Reformed (YRR) movement of Neo-Reformed theologians, pastors, and church planters. Unfortunately, some members of this movement have become known for their authoritarian leaders, high levels of staff turnover (frequently due to internal issues of conflict and control), overuse of church discipline, rigid gender roles, theological legalism, and lawyer-vetted membership covenants that are dicey and problematic. (Hence a provocative name for people of this theological persuasion was coined by the author team of Dee Parsons and Deb Martin of The Wartburg Watch – a “spiritual abuse survivors” blog that focuses on cultural trends affecting the Church. They call these aggressive and too-often spiritually abusive Neo-Reformed types the “Calvinistas.”)

Also, there are reports online of YRR leaders going into existing churches and non-profits, and “converting” or conforming them to their particular point of view. These reports have shown up primarily in spiritual abuse survivor blogs. I’ve been watching this for a few years now, and my gut instinct is that the number has been increasing significantly. What this means is that despite a church name or doctrinal statement “sounding” evangelical or missional, subterfuge may have gone on underneath. I expect this practice to become the subject of exposés and even deeper documentation over the next few years – perhaps even lawsuits – in an effort to contain the negative impact of this aggressive version of Reformed faith and practice.

Neo-Reformeds often apply the term missional to who they are and what they do. However, I see significant differences in the deepest levels of paradigms between them and Missionals in how they process information and their subsequent views of salvation, sanctification, and stance toward culture. I have posted an intermediate-level profile analyzing some of these key features in Definition and Description of the Term “Calvinistas.” (See especially the sections on Idealism, Power Structures, and Mission and Stance Toward Culture.)

These features may look similar on the surface to what passes as “missional,” and they use language that sounds the same. But, actually, when you look deeper, their paradigms embody critical differences that produce Neo-Reformeds discipleship systems that are irreconcilable with those of Missionals. (More is forthcoming in Part Three on my perspective of four distinct and incompatible models of congregational approaches to discipleship systems.) And so, out of all the streams, I think Neo-Reformeds have the least probability of surviving as part of a cohesive, long-term missional collaboration or movement.

Missionals

In my thinking, the “real” Missional stream provides a hub for a Kingdom-oriented movement that is distinctly holistic, paradoxical, and cross-cultural. To copy-and-paste from my missional synchroblog post of 2008, some of the critical values for followers of Christ in a missional paradigm are these:

• We value integrating all systems for biblical, theological, and cultural study for us to learn how best to interact in ways that allow contextualization to any culture. In part, contextualization means letting the everyday issues and concerns and needs of people in our neighborhood or other social setting create the agenda for our responses. However, within that, we will seek to empower instead of rescue, show compassion without compromise, and come alongside instead of control.
• We value ongoing relational-incarnational presence within our neighborhoods over the occasional event-attractional possibilities at some other location.
• We value setting all theological divisions and disciplines in a larger framework of redemptive transformation. This requires us to develop strategies, structures, models, and methods with sustainability, anti-toxicity, and cycles of change and rest involving persons, cultures, and the earth.
• We value setting all lifestyle issues in a larger framework of respect and mutuality where individual and corporate participation are always held in dynamic tension. This includes sustaining our community by considering the potential consequences for future generations of our current decisions. Also, as a learning community, we seek to listen to one another, discern as a body, and learn to interpret together the observations and perspectives of all members.
• We value God’s providential provisions to use through the gifts of both individuals and the community. Every person “leads” through their spiritual gifts, though not all are called to be leaders. The contributions of any individual are never quenched by the group for the sake of conformity, and the actions of any individual are never allowed to lead to chaos in the group for no good reason.
• Life is meant to move toward Christlike transformation as individuals, and toward its communal manifestation as Kingdom Culture as groups. Therefore, discipleship is the largest framework for transformation because it includes and leads both to evangelism and social activism.

What does all this mean – why is it even important? If we value embodying/incarnating Christlikenss in our relationships in the community and not just in the church, then our stances toward salvation, sanctification, and society are all significant elements in that. And, as we swirl about in the middle of the vortex of a changing cultural context, these stances need even more clarification to make sense in the world as it now is.

That’s the general importance of it all. More specifically, I think the paradoxical missional paradigm could better serve as a “hub” for interconnecting individuals, ministries, and churches from all the other streams, when I just don’t see the reverse as true. The Church no longer is dominant in the Western world. And no other post-Christendom fragment is poised to create and conserve a new kind of common ground like the missional paradigm can. It has the inherent potential for becoming a movement. And a movement has “big trajectory” that goes somewhere, not simply supplies a “big tent” where a spectrum of people gather.

These times are exciting, but scary; poignant, but risky. How will we in these diverse streams potentially integrate our differences as strengths, instead of only as sources for discord? Which all means there is likely even more sifting and shifting ahead …

To be continued in Part Three: Attractions and Repulsions in Forming a Coherent/Cohesive Movement.