the drum|rob fairbanks

A Call for the Church to Repent

I have long felt like my calling in life has been to help change the mind of the church. Jesus made it clear that he came to proclaim the good news that the Kingdom of God was near. The imperatives related to this declaration were for his followers to believe and repent (Mark 1). Repentance, while it means many things, at its simplest, most rendered definition it means to change one’s mind. I believe that is what the church in the West must do - change its mind regarding its identity.

Part of repentance means to turn from one direction to another. The negative side of the turning happens by deconstructing what has become of the church in what many would call Christendom. Though it is not the thrust of this post, the church must turn from its over-reliance on power and cultural control, it's political co-opting, and it's baptized mimicry of a consumer driven society (Have you visited many churches lately? IMHO, most churches are discipling people further into the consumer life, all the while Jesus actually calls us to deny ourselves and to daily take up our cross).

The positive direction of repentance is most activated by reimagining how we engage culture. I feel that as a leader, this is one of my most important functions…to get people to dream about how we live into Christ's prayer for his Kingdom to come in our local context just as it is in heaven.

One of the exercises that I use in my teaching is to have groups imagine leaving where they are, where the church is a siloed subset of whatever else is going on in their lives, and move to Grasse, France to plant a church with me. The reason I do this is to push them to imagine what life would look and feel like if they were to relocate to a context where less than 1% of the populace go to church. Not only to relocate, but to move there as missionaries.

Because I am semi-familiar with Grasse (pictured here), I know that on any given Sunday, out of the one hundred thousand or so people that live there, only about 70 to 90 people go to church. You will find around 15-20 in the historic Catholic Church and roughly 50-60 in two other storefront congregations (This information raises serious questions about church planting in most U.S. cities for me). One other note, while finding only a sliver of worshiping Christians in this once Christianized nation, you can find up to half of the hundred thousand people worshiping in a mosques. That's right, up to 50,000 Muslims in this western city. So, the question begs to be considered;

• If we were "sent" to Grasse, France as missionaries would you live life the same way we currently do in your normal lives?
• What would it affect? Would it influence how you spend your time?
• Would it impact where you and I live? Would we choose where we live in the same way we do in the United States?
• Would it challenge the way you spend your money?

I honestly don’t think so. I think it would change everything. See, by changing locations to a place where our intended purpose is recalibrated and the trappings of Christianity no longer hold any benefit or sway, we can begin to realize that the church’s identity must be recast if we hope to impact Western culture. Through answering these questions, we begin to bump up against some of the issues and challenges that the church (the people of God) must become aware of...and repent of if we are to regain our true identity.

r

Book Review: Kingdom Conspiracy by Scot McKnight

Do you wear skinny jeans or pleated pants?

Kind of a funny question, but those are the metaphors theologian Scot McKnight uses to describe two prevailing and popular views of the Kingdom of God in his book, Kingdom Conspiracy. The first view, skinny jeans, predictably represents a more current approach that frontloads public sector social justice activism, while often times bypassing the church. He writes, “Kingdom means good deeds done by good people (Christian or not) in the public sector for the common good.” (p.4) The second picture is, again predictably, a perspective that is more represented in “traditional” Christianity. He describes this group’s view by saying, “…the Kingdom is both present and future, and the kingdom is both a rule and reign.” (p. 9)

McKnight is not content with either of these views. The thrust of the book juxtaposes these two with, from McKnight’s viewpoint, a more robust theological and holistically biblical approach.

A key element for the book is re-setting a view about the Kingdom from a redemption/salvation aspect to its natural Old Testament view of a “nation” and “Israel.” He writes, “Thus, kingdom is front and center about a people and cannot be limited either to social ethic or a redemptive moment.” (p.205) He contends that a proper view has five elements: a king, a rule of a king, a people the king rules, a law by which the king reveals how to live as one of his people, and a land in which the king rules. McKnight doesn’t give up the “already/not yet” aspect of the Kingdom which captures the best of both perspectives.

Where he arrives and what I think is the strength of the book is connecting this view of the Kingdom to church. There truly has been a shift of perspective related to the church. For many there is the feeling of, Kingdom yes! The church, boo!!! So, the upshot of this is many simply by-passing the church with the idea that if what really matters is the Kingdom, then God really won’t mind if I just do Kingdom stuff and stay away from the church. I mean, come on! They are an embarrassing lot. McKnight will have none of this. And this is where he “lays the lumber” and probably shocks not just a few by saying unapologetically (ready?), “With one sentence, now, I pull the rope taut: there is no kingdom now outside of the church.” (p. 87) WHAT? I could feel my muscles tighten and my theological sensibilities contract as I slowly read. Even though I am a churchman….even though I have given my entire life to leading the church, the statement caught me off guard. I thought to myself, “Really? Did he really mean to write that?” I must admit I made the sound “hmmm!” (or maybe it was “hmmm?”) numerous times while thinking about it. He clarifies that the idea of kingdom in Jesus’ world always meant “…a people governed by a king.” (p. 66) Now, this is at the very heart of the book's effort to reunite Kingdom and Church. He writes, “…If kingdom is a people and the church is a people, then it follows that the church are the kingdom people. The church, then, is what is present and peopled in the realization of the kingdom now.” (p. 87) In other words, if you assert that there is a King there must be a Kingdom, and if there is a Kingdom there must be a people. If that is agreed upon, the question has to be asked regarding the New Testament: who are the people of the King? I suppose there might be some astute interpretive device to wiggle out of that syllogism, but even with a natural reading of the New Testament, the people of the King is the church. Citing Bonhoeffer, it is written: “The church according to Paul’s understanding presents no essential difference from Jesus’ ideas [about the kingdom].” (p. 94) If that is agreed upon, which I do for the most part, McKnight’s assertion that there is an undeniable link formed between Kingdom and the Church cannot be dodged or avoided.

Thinking that would be enough to swallow for one book, McKnight takes it one step further wrapping in the sub-title of the book (Returning to the Radical Mission of the Local Church), by saying, “At the very heart of kingdom mission are kingdom people, the church of King Jesus. In one short expression, then, kingdom mission is first and foremost church mission.” (p.95) He spends an entire chapter laying out what the mission would look like which draws in both redemptive activity and social engagement. It includes evangelism, worship, catechesis, fellowship, edification, discipleship, and through the utilization of spiritual gifts. Sounding very Wrightian, McKnight recaps his viewpoint: “I want now to sum up what kingdom mission is: kingdom mission flows from the kingdom story, and that story focuses on God at work in history as God brings that history to its focal point in Jesus as King. That kingdom story, then, focuses on God as King through King Jesus…kingdom mission forms a kingdom people and that kingdom people in the present world is the church. This means kingdom mission is all about forming and enhancing local churches as expressions of the kingdom of God in the world.” (p.123) A person might potentially disagree with how McKnight arrives at his conclusion, but there is no denying the strength and resolution of his conviction.

Take Aways:

• First, know that I did not read this book alone. I read it with two different groups of “skinny jeans” folk (none of them, by the way, appreciated the caricature). One was a group of undergrad theology majors from the university I teach at and the other was a group of mid-twenties theology studies graduates who attend the church I pastor. 
• Secondly, let me say that I really like Scot McKnight. As a matter of fact, I believe he is one of the truly helpful theologians that I have read.  His books on the Gospel (King Jesus Gospel) and the Atonement (A Community Called Atonement) I felt were spot on and timely works. That said, to a person, everyone I read with felt that McKnight could’ve stayed true to his objective and shortened the book. Each felt like it could’ve been just as powerful as a shorter read.
• Lastly, I felt like Scot did an admirable job pushing people to “deal with” the church. As already stated, as a pastor, I have seen a steady flow of people with an atrophied ecclesiology simply go it outside of the church thinking they are standing on solid theological footing. McKnight boldly dispels this idea. He may have overreached with some of his language of kingdom and church correspondence, but the need to recapture the linkage is both commendable and very much needed.

McKnight closes his book by saying, still absolutely unflinching, “The only place kingdom work is and can be done is in and through the local church when disciples (kingdom citizens, church people) are doing kingdom mission,” and I might add, whether you wear skinny jeans or pleated pants! (p. 208)

Learn more. http://www.kingdomconspiracy.com/

r 

Prodigal Christianity: 10 Signposts into the Missional Frontier

Over the last couple of months I’ve had the privilege of reading the book “Prodigal Christianity” with a group of my friends here in Spokane. All of them are good thinkers and we had a wonderful time processing the ideas by Dave Fitch and Geoff Holsclaw. 

The book is really an attempt to locate a way forward that is truly prodigal in today's Christianity, a third way if you will. A writing device the authors employed is a cyclical juxtaposition between a Neo-Reform perspective of Christianity (Piper, Keller, et al) and a more “Emergent” version (McLaren and Jones). Honestly, a device I am not entirely thrilled with and I would suspect the authors represented in the book probably were not wild about either. Nonetheless, while looking at both of these poled perspectives they seek to mine out an alternative way for the church to move forward in the undulating social challenges of Western society.

The authors capably lay out a progression of ideas tethered to the idea of Barth’s “Far Country.” They move from a theological orientation or baseline to the more practical issues such as homosexuality and social justice (both chapters are probably worth the price of the book), both I deeply appreciated. They refer to “Signposts” that assist us to navigate both the church and “powder keg” issues we currently face as Christians in the U.S.

As far as full disclosure, I must say that I've appreciated Dave Fitch’s ideas before I read this book (The Great Giveaway) and am a causal acquaintance of both authors. I have great appreciation and admiration for both of them. You can locate both men’s personal blogs at…Fitch - Reclaiming Mission & Holsclaw - Into the Far Country

One of the key elements of the book for me was the nuanced challenge to be present in every situation trusting God is there before us, an idea often called prevenience. I honestly think if each Christian person I know could embrace the idea that they are expounding it would change Christianity. I know that sounds like a stretch, but I truly beleive it. In Signpost #2, the missio Dei, Fitch vulnerably writes about learning how to pray for his neighbors;

"I had in mind that this meant to pray for my friends to somehow see their need for God's forgiveness and that I would have an opportunity to give them the answer: the gospel of being forgiven from sin. The friend challenging me said, 'No, God is already working there, in each person's life. Just pray that you will have eyes to see what God is doing so you can participate with a word, or a prayer, with laughter, or a tear.'  If the Triune God is already in mission, then I need to see the world in which I regularly walk as the arenas of the Spirit – places imbued with the presence of God. This was a fundamental shift. It changed the way I walked into every space of my life. Missio Dei means that God is already at work in our lives and the lives of all around us."

The other bit that I found quite significant about the book is the author's insistence that these issues that all of us face must be worked out in a local context, the local church. All of the jockeying for influence on the net or in celebrity Christianity is doing nothing more than exacerbating the problems that we have. These issues must be worked out with real people, in real time, in a real location. I could not concur more.

In summary, I would recommend this book with great enthusiasm to anyone trying to navigate the nuances of what it means to live life on mission in a postmodern context. Both Fitch and Holsclaw have grasped the idea that being a Christian today isn't about reactivity or in finding yourself in some sort of theological entrenchment, but in moving  into the “far country,” being prodigal in a nonreactive, loving, open…local way.

r

Church Planting in Context - Incarnating the Gospel

Incarnating the Gospel

What does it mean to incarnate the Gospel? Observing God’s love toward humanity best captures the idea of incarnation. It is actualized by God taking on human flesh and lovingly drawing near to His creation. As a matter of fact, in John 1 it is articulated by verse 14, which says, “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.” Literally, it means God came near, even moving into the neighborhood.

As we plant Immanuel Church, one of the contouring values we have is seeking to dream of how we can incarnate the Gospel in a particular context. In our case, that is the north central area of Spokane, Washington (Click here for demographics of the area). It has become our parish, if you will.

An Ecclesial (tricky word for "church") Problem

One of the problems that the church faces in America is Christians often envision their church involvement one directionally. By that I mean, people make decisions about where they should go based upon what they can get out of it. It is kind of like a laundry list of items like:

• Whether we like the speaker (does he have nice hair...does he have any hair? :))
• Whether we like the worship style (or how accomplished the musicians are)
• Whether our kids are cared for the way we think they should be
• Whether the facility is comfortable
• Whether we feel at ease with the people who attend, etc. 

Now, I am not saying the following to produce guilt of any kind, but allow me to poke at those reasons a wee bit. Each of them, if we are honest, are somewhat “me” centered.

An Alternative

While we may fairly debate the validity of each of those reasons for attending a church, if we believe that incarnation is important, it is also essential that we consider attending in a location that has some proximity to where we live. In a word, we MUST consider the missional aspect of where we attend.

A Challenge

Here’s a challenge as it relates to Immanuel here in Spokane - and it is two prong:

1. Join our Team - If you live in the North Central area of Spokane, will you consider joining our team of missionaries as we seek to genuinely display and declare the Gospel to this unique and under resourced part of our city. Some of you live in the very area we are attempting to reach, yet drive across numerous geographical zones to be a part of another community. That is fine if you clearly sense the Spirit’s call for you to do that, but if you have not considered the missional orientation of the church, take some time and do so. I am persuaded that your mission effectiveness would be enhanced by churching in the same area that you are living...and we certainly could use the partnership.
2. Relocate - If you feel called to be a part of Immanuel Church, would you consider relocating to the North Central? It's called "re-neighboring." I know, I know, that is really counter to how we Americans think, but if we really buy the idea that God’s mission in a context is a calling, we cannot easily dismiss the idea that living in the same area you worship is important. While it may not be imperative in a commuter city, it certainly is not outside of the purview of consideration. Alternatively, maybe if you live in the North Central area and go to a church outside of that area, you should mull over the idea of moving there.

If you are interested in helping in any way, just comment on this blog and I will get back to you promptly or email me at (Click here).

Living, investing and “embedding” in the same area you gather to worship is not a new idea. It has been a proven missiological concept for a very long time…it is as old as, well…the moment God took on flesh and moved into the neighborhood.

Peace y’all!

r

Church Planting in Real Time

I've been involved in church planting for a long time now. Practically my whole adult life. The first church that I planted was 26 years ago. It was a massive learning experience and an abysmal failure. We closed it with a sad groan after 3 arduous years. I don’t know if you remember the CD some years ago by Lauren Hill, but it was entitled, “The Miseducation of Lauren Hill.”  In a very real sense, my first church planting experience could’ve been given a similar title – The Re-Education of Rob Fairbanks. For the first two or three years of pastoring prior to launching out in the church plant, I found my tutelage in the “Church Growth Movement.” It was an inebriating experience. As a voracious learning, I drank long, hard and often. With my competitive orientation, the “by the numbers” approach to a growing a large church became a drug of sorts, which deeply confused my motivation for planting.  I have written about that wonderful/painful progression elsewhere, so I won’t go into detail here, but suffice it to say that I needed breaking (which happened) and re-educating (which I am still doing almost 30 years later).

The second church that I planted was in 1991, 22 years ago (New Community). I went on to pastor that church for close to 20 years.  To say that it was an easy experience would be to lie, but the community of people that eventually emerged ended up being a beautiful and fruitful symbol of what church could be in a west coast city of the U.S.

Running parallel with both of those experiences I have had, in varying degrees, the privilege of assisting in planting eight other churches.

For the last four years I've been leading an organization with a stated purpose that is exclusively church planting. Its mission statement reads: “The mission of Christian Associates is to establish churches who follow Jesus in transforming their world.” I got the chance to drop in on communities from North and Latin America, through most of Europe, all the way to Russia. It was an exhilarating experience. (Link to Christian Associates)

Now, at 54, I'm embarking on a new church-planting venture. Some have wondered about my sanity. Heck, I've wondered about my sanity. I've always said that church planting is a young man's sport. The church is called Immanuel Church and is in Spokane, WA. While I have a veritable lifetime of experience in church planting, I find that moving back onto the ground as a practitioner brings about many challenges that I simply don't have pithy answers for (I am finding that it is much easier to be a strategist when you don’t have to actually put it into practice - :-/). I am a bit of novice all over again. Well, I don't want to suggest that I don’t have any answers. I do have a general idea of how to go about this and a functional progression in mind of how church planting happens best in Western culture. Perhaps I will talk little bit about that in future blogs but it is my intention to travel along those guidelines that I have, along with others, discovered over the last 27 years.

Some have wondered if I will utilize methodologies for church planting such as an "attractional" approach or simply planting a "worship service" as I begin this new project. Seems like odd wonderings. If I did, it would be the first time. We have always operated out of a decentralized approach where the "gathered" community was responsive to what the church was doing in the world...even before there was "missional" language to describe it.

I guess the only thing I can promise is:

• I'll try not to be stupid regarding things I should already know.
• I will attempt to stay in a humble, learning posture.
• I will seek to honestly travel along the pathway of my personal convictions about how I believe mission happens.
• I will seek as much as possible to follow sensitively where I perceive the Holy Spirit is leading.
• and all 4 of those will happen within a community of real people who are trying to live out the Gospel of the Kingdom in a particular context.

Is that enough?

I hope so. I can't think of anything else besides that as a way forward.

Peace,

r

Using Church Resources in Alignment with a Missional Approach

I believe that there is a direct correlation between how a church spends its money and its effectiveness in engaging the world. If the church spends all its money on itself (I mean using it to run the “show” – I would include staff, building, etc. in this), there's a pretty good chance that it's going to be stalled out as far as growth is concerned. I am shocked (although, I shouldn’t be) by how most churches use their money. Seriously, many churches feel like it is a herculean achievement to allocate 10% of their money outside of the building and its members. 

One of the churches that I've had the privilege of helping start, Emmaus Church, actually spends 50% of its budget outside of their building/members, in the community where they reside.

Their Budget looks like:

• 50% - General expense
• 25% - Global Engagement
• 25% - Local Outreach

The Global and Local would include things such as trans-local outreach, evangelism, social justice, community development and church planting. It is incredibly ambitious for a group to spend that much money outside of running the church, but I think it is the direction churches have to go to ensure that they are viable and missional into the future.

The church plant that I am starting is going to initially use a breakdown of:

• 66% - General
• 12% - Trans-local (out of our region)
• 12% - Local Outreach
• 10% - Save

I obviously don’t have the faith that David Von has at Emmaus :)

Regardless of allotment percentages, a church has to think/pray long and hard about how they use the resources God has charged them to manage for His Kingdom. A church has to settle whether it really wants to behave “missionally,” or just use the word in its Mission Statement! To be sure, it is not a magic formula or a panacea for engaging the world. Money is only one facet in how a community operates. That said, if the church’s identity is “missional” than it is imperative that it is somehow reflective in its use of money.

Do you know of another church that is giving away more than Emmaus? Budgeting 50% of their resouces to be given away? I'm sure there are - I just don't know of them.

How much does your community set aside to be used for something other than "your community?"

r

An Extravagant Gesture of Love for Jesus

John 12:1-8 -  Six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus lived, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. 2 Here a dinner was given in Jesus’ honor. Martha served, while Lazarus was among those reclining at the table with him. 3 Then Mary took about a pint[a] of pure nard, an expensive perfume; she poured it on Jesus’ feet and wiped his feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume. 4 But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, 5 “Why wasn’t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year’s wages.” 6 He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it. 7 “Leave her alone,” Jesus replied. “It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial. 8 You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me.”

I will be speaking at The Porch, here in Spokane on March 17^th.  They have asked me to teach from John 12.  The story is fairly familiar to most Bible readers. A few usual suspects: Jesus, of course, Lazarus, Judas Iscariot and the polar opposite sisters of Martha and Mary.  The center of the story captures Mary pouring out a seemingly inordinate amount of expensive perfume (pure nard) on the feet of Jesus. Crazy, right?

In looking at the story I'm struck initially by a couple of things.

The first is Mary's apparent imperviousness to the pressure to do domestic stuff with Martha. We know from their other encounter with Jesus (Luke 10) that Martha was quite a fastidious (and demanding) hostess and almost certainly wanted Mary to help with the service part of caring for Jesus. Mary, however, was resolved. She must have been incredibly focused on what she was about to do.

The second thing, however, is the difficulty of how to describe what Mary did. The common homiletical description is that Mary “worship.” For me though, that doesn't sum up what was happening accurately. It almost seems trite and a bit lazy to describe it that way. I was trying to think of several other words that described what she was doing. It very well could be called worship, but I think what was going on was more along lines of “adoration.” A definition of “adore” is, “To regard with deep, often rapturous love.” She was expressing adoration. I don't think she was thinking I'm going to worship Jesus, but she was simply expressing her love for him in the way that made the most sense to her.

So, what of it? What are the take aways?

1. It was sacrificial. It cost her a great deal. We see that in the response from Judas Iscariot in the text. It says that it cost about a years wages! That’s why Judas got so bent out of shape. It says that he was dipping into the community purse at his pleasure and when he saw this un-collected bit, he sanctimoniously weighed in, “We could use that for the, a-hem, the poor…and stuff.” Here's a question: When was the last time, in one sitting, have you committed the equivalent of a years wages (without any tangible ROI) as a gesture of love for Jesus? My answer, "A...ne-ver!"
2. The second thing though, it must've been awkward. Try to put yourself in the room...even as a back 
   row by-stander. I have a hard time conceiving of the scenario that took place without some feeling of awkwardness in the room. Though I am not one of those who believe anything weird went on between Jesus and the women around him, this event is incredible sensual (related to our senses). It may have been slightly more comfortable in their context, but can you imagine a group of people in the room and all of a sudden such an intimate act begins to happen? If I were there I would almost go, “Um, would you put your hair away? It's quite distracting! I'm trying to pay my respects to this guy and you're making a spectacle.”

Mary seemed indifferent to the excessive expense or the potential awkwardness. She simply loved...in a tangible way.

One other thing about this beautiful story though is it says that because of this self-effacing and astonishing act of Mary’s, the room, no the whole house was filled with the stunning fragrance of the perfume. I suppose that could be the missional element of the narrative. By a real person extravagantly adoring Christ, in a natural way, there was a beautiful fragrance that billowed through the entire house. Could that be a model for us? In our homes? In our churches? In our cities?

I’m afraid that many people I hang around with are more concerned about what others think of them than an unrestrained gesture of adoration of Christ. I’m afraid I might be one of them.

Newbigin on the Community of Faith

I am reading the book, The Household of God by Lessile Newbigin.  The below is a seminal thought about the church and its role in the world.

“It is surely a fact of inexhaustible significance that what our Lord left behind Him was not a book, nor a creed, nor a system of thought, nor a rule of life, but a visible community. He committed the entire work of salvation to that community. It was not that a community gathered round an idea, so that the idea was primary and the community secondary. It was that a community called together by the deliberate choice of the Lord Himself, and re-created in Him, gradually sought – and is seeking – to make explicit who He is and what He has done. The actual community is primary; the understanding of what it is comes second.” The Household of God (p.20)

I started wearing my glasses before I new he sported his. I swear I was not copying. But pretty pumped that we have similar tastes though!

Thankful

Today as I sit in my house in Portland, sipping coffee, and listening to the sweet sound of rain fall on the ground outside, I am thrust into waves of peace. I am reflecting on a month of learning, laughter, increased friendship, sorrow, and deep joy. The past three weeks I got to spend listening to amazing classmates (who I now consider friends) discuss and grow in what it means to be the church. I again learned that there is no perfect church, mostly because there is no perfect person. And in my most vulnerable moments, I have to remind myself that the church is people. Beautiful, broken, alive, and challenging people. 

We read the Gospel and understand maybe a tenth of what Jesus was trying to teach and model to us. Reading through Mark 10 and 11 a few minutes ago, I am in awe of how little I seek the Kingdom of God and instead seek the opinion of the world. How often do I stop and listen? How little do I remind myself that joy is a gift and a choice? How terrible am I at thinking of myself as a little child, hopeful that God redeems and saves? How often do I care more for my possessions than I do for my present relationship with God? 

All of these questions I examined this past term and found that there is no greater answer than the person of Christ. And for me, that begins by being thankful and being disciplined enough to listen wholeheartedly to God. So today, I don’t have any huge theological answers to how the church should function better, serve God more, or be wholly united. But I am able to live into the posture of being thankful. Thankful for a class who tested me, encouraged me, and put up with me. Thankful for a Creator who is infinitely more able and loving than I. 

Thankful.

Katherine

Move It! ‘Cause you really ‘ought to

    There is something heartfelt and immediately piercing about praising God with
movement. There is a part of ourselves, our physicality, that we have neglected in our
worship. And because of it we have lost touch with our emotional souls; our movement
and our emotions are intricately linked. It is hard to lie and keep the world out when you
are engaged in authentic movement. I have found that some of my most honest and
vulnerable moments have been when I have used movement as a form of worship.
    Our bodies, our movements, I think, are that last piece in our worship; the piece
that connects it all together. I cannot express how freeing it is to use dance and
movement to pray and worship God, and at the same time, I cannot express how hard it
was to get to that place. It is not natural for us to be open and vulnerable with each
other. It is not natural to be uninhibited in our emotion and movement. So we have
learned to worship unnaturally: keeping everything inside locked up tight. But I don’t
think God wants us to worship only with our voices; I think we glorify Him most when we
are authentic and honest with each other. And I think that we could do that better if we
all learned to move a little more; to dance a little more. David danced, after all, as did
Jesus. So why can’t we?

Zach