I’ve also written a manual for churches who want to get involved in homeless ministry or just want to know more about homelessness. If anyone would like a free digital copy of this manual, email me at:
stevekimes@aol.com

Steve K

The things that I have found to be the major needs of the homeless are not the traditional issues–
The homeless need a means to obtain income that will work around their particular issues.
The homeless need to connect to a community that gives them respect and recognizes the effort they put into living.
The homeless need a support community that will provide small finances and possibly transportation and other issues that will help them reach their own goals.

Churches can provide this, if they have some guidance and an open heart.

M, I understand that this seems unlikely for many churches. So many churches have such a biased viewpoint of the homeless.

But if they could be trained to see people as human, dealing with issues just like they do. And if they can be helped to see that to “help the homeless” they don’t have to reach out to the entire community (which is a very different proposal), but just one or two people. And if they can realize that ministry is really a matter of friendship instead of “taking on a project”. Perhaps there will be hope. Perhaps change can happen.

Steve K

Perhaps better to do some bad and some good than do little to nothing…….?

I have to take the middle road here. On the one hand SteveK has a point. There’s a lot of churches that can meet a lot of needs. The problem isn’t resources. I think that’s the gist of his post.

On the other hand Melissa voices her concerns with helping these folks. They have a wide range of emotional, physical, and drug problems; some choose homelessness, some are nearly unreachable, the list is long. Churches might not be prepared to help some of these folks. Some will mess up.

I think SteveK has an important message. Perhaps I can whittle it down a bit: “Resources are not an issue. Let’s try to meet the needs of these people.”

Are you proposing that - assuming the homeless person is willing - each church pay to send a homeless person to rehab? Provide for that person financially while they go back to school and get their GED or earn a trade? Pay off their court costs? Provide them with a working vehicle that will pass inspection? Pay off the debts that led to the garnishment that caused them to not be able to pay their rent, and hence caused their homelessness?

Because if that is what you’re proposing then I offer a sincere/heart felt AMEN! But, I think you have a more optimistic view of churches than I do.

I’ve worked for two different Salvation Army shelters. At the first one - they (the church/staff) LOVED those people, and I saw lives changed in a very real and tangible way. I was so impressed that I almost joined the Salvation Army. But, then, I moved and started working for another Salvation Army - and it was completely different. The attitude was, “We help the scum because we’re the Salvation Army and we’re supposed to,” and everything about the place reflected that attitude.

If you get that big a variation in a denomination that is KNOWN for helping the disenfranchised - how much more so would it be with a wide variety of denominations? I honestly would be concerned some of those churches would end up doing more harm than good.

“Sure… so what do you when a woman says “God has called me forward” and others confirm it, but an opposing group says, “God doesn’t call women forward.””

But that is not happening. Emergent Village was formed on the principal that women should be in leadership roles. And these other “groups”, Steenwyk’s Misseo Dei, and Claiborne’s entities, Wallis’ recent fame, and Bell’s amazing books……….no human put these men on the forefront of this “emergent” thing, they just sort of happened.

I think some people are more interested in what’s between someone’s legs than what God is doing. Look around, something big is happening, and God happens to be using (mostly) men.

Have you read the book? What did you expect?

Well… being that the Bible was written in a very distinct political, cultural, and power dynamic, I am pretty confident in saying that you cannot discuss Biblical principles without looking at how it related to the context at the time, and in turn how it relates to the current context.

Simply put: “Who has God called forward?”

Sure… so what do you when a woman says “God has called me forward” and others confirm it, but an opposing group says, “God doesn’t call women forward.”

I don’t think that is so “obvious.”

Can you explain a bit more what you’re trying to say?

If the (fallen) structures that WE have put into place are pushing men into leadership and holding women back from responding to Godde’s call and taking active leadership roles, then don’t we need to talk about the “relevant cultural and political issues”?

I think we can all agree that this should be obvious. We just think have different understandings about what that “obvious” answer is.

Then we would disagree.

Who are people listening to? Why?

Simply put: “Who has God called forward?”

You’d think this obvious.

I think these are great observations and questions. I, too, wondered what was to be gained from the San Jose 2007 conference when I attended. Since I had not really been a Christian that long - and didn’t grow up in a Mennonite church - the conference was very helpful for me. Yet, I wasn’t sure if it would have been helpful for others; I wondered if it was useful for those who had been in the church for a while. I wondered if the gathering was just for the sake of gathering, for the sake of showing that we are doing something as a church/denomination.

I think the criteria for meeting that you have established are the first step in challenging traditional conference models.

The conversation NEVER has been Biblically based. Rather it is always culturally and politically based.

huh?

I have had numerous conversations about gender identity and gender roles (both within and outside of the church) that have included many, many hours talking about how these issues related to Biblical teachings and Biblical theology.

Of course… you absolutely cannot talk about the theological and Biblical aspects to this conversation without talking about the relevant cultural and political issues that are directly tied to the theological issues.

As to the gender issues within both the Emergent movement and the New Monasticism movement (don’t tell Shane/Chris I called it a movement… they don’t like that!), it is a definitely a problem.

As Tim pointed out, the “spokesMEN” are all men. There are numerous amazing women within the New Monasticism movement whose voices are not being heard. Some of that is by choice - many of the women involved have no desire to travel the country and do book tours, or write on big mainstream religious blogs. Instead they often desire to just do what New Monasticism is - live intentionally and simply in community with other sisters and brothers as they pursue peace and justice together.

Don’t get me wrong - I think there is a place blogs and book tours and speaking engagements, but I know that many of the women in the movement are not at all interested in doing it.

But I do have significant concerns with the lack of female voices both within Emergent and within New Monasticism.

Whenever someone brings up the gender identity of God or female leadership in the church this is the conservation I’ve always had:

Me: “So what do you think about women in leadership in the church.”

Someone who supports gender equality in the church: “The balance of power traditionally has been men. One must understand the gender dymanics of the culture, past and present, and the oppression of minority groups.”

The conversation NEVER has been Biblically based. Rather it is always culturally and politically based. When people boil down matters of theology to matters of political power those people seem, well, silly.

My impression is, this becomes more than a social issue within the church. It has theological implications like very little conversation about dominant male images for God. Of course in the same circles language for God, as I’ve seen it, is remarkably traditional and almost always relies on trinitarian language of Father, Son, etc. etc.

When it comes to voices questioning destructive forces in mainstream North American culture, then I think the emergent stuff has been very helpful. When it comes to God-talk, I think this movement has presented very little that is new. In fact, it seems to disregard the creative theological work of the last 50 years and simply goes back to very traditional ideas about who/what God is.

A final disclaimer. I feel like I just made a whole bunch of big generalizations and relied on unhelpful categories like “conservative.” Sorry. I don’t like that…

Thanks for raising this. I’m with you in not being as up-to-date on all the emergent stuff as I should be, but gender balance has been one of my main concerns about the “emergent movement” for awhile now. Why is it that we don’t often hear about or from women leaders in the emergent church? What does that say about the nature of the emergent movement?

My other concern has been a perceived desire within the emergent movement to “move beyond homosexuality” and other such controversial topics simply by not talking about them. That seems neither healthy nor helpful, in my opinion.

Perhaps others can correct me, or give me some reasons to be more excited about the emergent movement than I am.

Though I didn’t mention this is my review, this would definitely be a concern for me too. This seems to be true both specifically and more broadly in the New Monasticism movement. Specifically, during the Jesus for President presentation only Chris and Shane were on stage most of the time. The two musicians were also male, although were occasionally joined by some women musicians.

I’ve also talked with a female friend who has been part of the New Monasticism movement for years who has pointed out that all of the visible leadership that is speaking and writing. There are definitely women involved in leadership positions, but they tend to be doing logistical support or organizing.

PAPA Festival would be something of an exception to this where there was more gender balance in the leadership from the stage and in work shops.

I hope that discussions about these dynamics are happening inside the New Monasticism movement. I think this is an especially important dynamic to watch because the New Monasticism movement is reaching out to Christian groups where male leadership is assumed.

Anyhow, about Shane Claiborn. I’m a new Mennonite pastor, and as such, I feel like I’m one of the people who “can’t afford to sit this one out”. Though frankly the sheer volume of Emmergent-type stuff that I feel like I’m supposed to be aware of is far more vast than I can take in these days. I admit that I have not read any of his stuff yet, nor have I been to one of the Jesus for President events this summer.

However, a friend of mine saw the tour when it stopped at the Union Project in Pittsburgh. She’s late 40s, and remembers similar movements from the early 1980s, like the early days of Jim Wallace and Sojourners in DC. She was very disappointed and concerned about the lack of gender balance at the Pittsburgh event. This could simply be a Pittsburgh thing, but what do others of you observe about the role of female leadership in this 21st-century version?

I think there is lots of potential where Mennonites intersect with Evangelical leaders like Claiborn, McClaren, Rob Bell, etc. But I think both camps, Mennonite theology and socially-conscious Evangelical thinking, must continue to take seriously the need to cultivate young female leaders and the ongoing relevance and critique of feminist theologians. It seems almost like old news to call attention to this, but I fear it has become passe in some Christian circles to worry about gender and feminist concerns. But, alas, there is more work to be done…

Any thoughts?

The New Testament writers are more than simply inspiring. They had first hand contact with Christ. They wrote the gospels. They ate with Jesus. Some were biological brothers, others best friends, some students, other matyrs. Their word is to be trusted considering they wrote the words of Christ down. The New Testament writers, considering they joted down the words of Christ, considering Christ trusted them to write it, are fathers of the faith. They are not God but their words are not simple interpretations of Christ’s teachings, they are well beyond that.

Secondly, each congregation and individual either obey’s Christ or they do not. It’s that simple. This may not mean obeying every little “rule” but it does mean that we need to live a submissive lifestyle unto Christ. Humble ourselves, accept our wrongdoing, and try to be become, not good people, but an extraordinary holy people.

1. What Jesus said is primary and since we accept him as our Lord, Jesus’ word is law.

2. Jesus’ law are moral principles for living, not usually “rules” and so we need to apply those principles to our lives and communities as strictly as possible. These principles are often understood as “love, generosity, humility, etc”

3. Jesus was more specific about vices– bad things we want to avoid for the sake of our relationship with God– but these are also stated in general terms “greed, sexual immorality, slander”.

4. We can make rules out of these terms and there are certain things we should always avoid (murder, adultery, etc), but usually each generation, congregation and individual can re-apply these principles to themselves to make it fresh for them and apply them to their context.

5. The OT’s purpose from a Jesus’ perspective is to have it fulfilled in Christ. We see how others relate to God and we have examples of what Jesus was talking about, but our law is in Christ, not Moses.

6. The NT writers are inspiring and important, but they are mostly significant in how they point us back to Jesus.

Anyway, that’s how I see it.

Steve K

Neither seem to take a traditional anabaptist position. I like a lot of what Shane has to say.

Basically SHane says this: “Vote for who you like but remember Jesus first.”

On the flip side Brian says: “While I respect Shane’s opinion vote for the canidate that focuses on issues Christians can agree more on.”

Hmmm…….

I think I’ve come to the conclusion that politics cannot help our faith. We have a resonable amount of freedom in this country and nothing besides the war is any sort of imminent threat to humankind.

I want to stay out of the mess of politics as best I can.

*Full Disclosure*

During the Primaries I, as registered Republican, voted for Ron Paul. I was tempted to give Mr. Paul my time for campaging but decided against it. I had to ask myself: “If I can’t give Jesus that time then why should Dr. Paul have it?”

Obama is simply a liberal calling it “change”.
McCain is some sort of Neo-Con Progressive disguised as a conservative.

I can’t vote for either of those guys come November.

Here’s some questions I have for the canidates (I have more but I’ll only ask two).

For Barack Obama:

Your national healthcare insurance seems quite comprehensive. How do you plan to pay for this with the shrinking of the dollar, the federal deficit, the recession, and the war[s]. Also, it seems that healthcare insurance companies, not doctors or patients, is the problem with healthcare today. Your package isn’t about healthcare at all, it’s about insurance which is simply a means to aquire healthcare. Considering that the insurance companies are the problem in and of itself how do you think making them larger with the backing of the federal government will solve the problem? Isn’t this kinda like giving a crazed lunatic with a gun a bazooka?

For John McCain:

WTF?

Advise Everyone… Endorse No One
- Shane Claiborne does a good job of emphasizing primarily loyalty to the Kingdom of God.

Voting is Never Uncritical, Unqualified, nor Unconditional
Brian Mclaren gently challenges Shane’s post. “Again, even in voting, we must realize that we do so without giving uncritical, unqualified support to our political system.”

Note that I’m not endorsing these perspectives. :-)