One of the things I've noticed in reading over the past few months is how people have been critiquing the church. In this move from wherever we were to a more missional emphasis we're reading things through a different lens...and this is good. When it becomes a challenge is when we see the old model of what many would call the 'institutional' church in a state of such disarray that we feel there is little to no worth in it.
When I was a kid I was a part of a larger church. It was very traditional in many ways. A group of friends and I really wanted to do some new things within the church. We wanted to transform the church into something that we thought it could be. What we didn't do was appreciate what was there. We were critical of what wasn't there and what wasn't being done. I see this in some of the current missional conversation.
For example, Michael Frost wrote a great book entitled Exiles. I was trackin' until the last few chapters where he went on a little soapbox on the current state of music within the church. I felt that instead of bringing a better construction of what could be there was criticism of what was.
As we look at our current church situation it is important to be constructive toward the current institutional church (the type that meets in buildings that use pastors, etc :-). It's great how the missional conversation is going, but as one who serves a local congregation I'm needing some breathing room in how I think through all this. At first I just wanted to quit. I thought what we're doing was so against what the missional church is supposed to do...but it wasn't. I was just thinking that everything had to go in order for us to become this missional people. But I've learned to be challenged by the call to mission without giving up everything. In contrast to McClaren's new book I'm not so much into everything must change...perhaps things must shift...perhaps Some Things must change...but I'm not sure everything has to. To think that way insinuates there's nothing worthwhile in the local congregations we have now. As a part of an amazing community of faith I would have to argue otherwise.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Monday, December 10, 2007
Overwhelmed by Mission?
I'm continuing to process this missional thing and I'm becoming aware that one feels overwhelmed as we look at the broad nature of need around us. The overwhelmed feeling happens when we begin to see Jesus in the people around us. Before we were able to live within our world of busyness and nicely heated homes, but as we realize the mission of Jesus our eyes...spiritual and physical...are opened to the great needs around us.
And then you read authors on the missional movement. You become aware of environmental devastation that you didn't know about. You learn of economic injustices. You skin crawls as you learn more of the persecution that goes on around the world. And here you are, stuck in the place where you're at with a book in your hand left wondering, "What difference can I really make?"
I've felt that many times over the last several months. The fact is that it's not only about making a difference, but it's about becoming more like Christ. To become more like Christ requires both loving God and others. It's about growing closer to the heart of God and demonstrating that heart to other people. If we focus on the monstrosity of the issues around us we will be easily overwhelmed. I don't think that's the point. So what is the point? Committing our lives to a transforming relationship with Christ that changes us and our world.
It started with me in a very small way. I love clothes. I had a lot of them. I got rid of over half of them. I learned to live with less and now hold the conviction not to buy unless I'm in definite need of them. It wasn't me first saying "I think it would be a great thing to give some things away." It began with conviction. I loved the stuff. I had more than what was necessary. I wanted to learn to live with less. This has impacted how I spend money and my overall outlook on stuff. God changed this part of my outlook on life. This benefits others. It benefits those things I don't buy that support slave labor. It supports those we can give more to because we spend less. But these things are byproducts, not the initial change. The initial change comes with the heart.
I don't share this to boast or brag...but hopefully to give hope! What I described to you was very small, but it's very significant. I can't change the world, but I can allow God to change me. In that process something happens. Others benefit. The Kingdom coming in my heart and life benefit others...and it should. Don't get overwhelmed by the enormity of the global atrocities, but allow yourself to be transformed by God and see that transformation through the lens of global benefit.
Perhaps some year for you it may be taking a family vacation to Africa. There you may work with AIDS prevention. You may be a minority. You may learn what it feels like to be an outcast. You may see what it is like to travel hours for water. You may feel blessed to love the outcasts there. You may be blessed to be changed by their humanity (I'm describing a dream I have personally of going there...hopefully soon). It could be simply viewing life differently...that you're here to bless and serve others instead of yourself. That doesn't even take a cross-continental trip!
You may love stuff less. You may love others more. You may be changed. This I think is the heart of the missional message of Jesus. God in flesh walked among others and showed them a new way...one that doesn't vest itself in the things of this world but in beautiful humanity...the apex of his creation. He came to love and serve all...no longer are there slave or free, male or female, etc...he came to love us all.
And then you read authors on the missional movement. You become aware of environmental devastation that you didn't know about. You learn of economic injustices. You skin crawls as you learn more of the persecution that goes on around the world. And here you are, stuck in the place where you're at with a book in your hand left wondering, "What difference can I really make?"
I've felt that many times over the last several months. The fact is that it's not only about making a difference, but it's about becoming more like Christ. To become more like Christ requires both loving God and others. It's about growing closer to the heart of God and demonstrating that heart to other people. If we focus on the monstrosity of the issues around us we will be easily overwhelmed. I don't think that's the point. So what is the point? Committing our lives to a transforming relationship with Christ that changes us and our world.
It started with me in a very small way. I love clothes. I had a lot of them. I got rid of over half of them. I learned to live with less and now hold the conviction not to buy unless I'm in definite need of them. It wasn't me first saying "I think it would be a great thing to give some things away." It began with conviction. I loved the stuff. I had more than what was necessary. I wanted to learn to live with less. This has impacted how I spend money and my overall outlook on stuff. God changed this part of my outlook on life. This benefits others. It benefits those things I don't buy that support slave labor. It supports those we can give more to because we spend less. But these things are byproducts, not the initial change. The initial change comes with the heart.
I don't share this to boast or brag...but hopefully to give hope! What I described to you was very small, but it's very significant. I can't change the world, but I can allow God to change me. In that process something happens. Others benefit. The Kingdom coming in my heart and life benefit others...and it should. Don't get overwhelmed by the enormity of the global atrocities, but allow yourself to be transformed by God and see that transformation through the lens of global benefit.
Perhaps some year for you it may be taking a family vacation to Africa. There you may work with AIDS prevention. You may be a minority. You may learn what it feels like to be an outcast. You may see what it is like to travel hours for water. You may feel blessed to love the outcasts there. You may be blessed to be changed by their humanity (I'm describing a dream I have personally of going there...hopefully soon). It could be simply viewing life differently...that you're here to bless and serve others instead of yourself. That doesn't even take a cross-continental trip!
You may love stuff less. You may love others more. You may be changed. This I think is the heart of the missional message of Jesus. God in flesh walked among others and showed them a new way...one that doesn't vest itself in the things of this world but in beautiful humanity...the apex of his creation. He came to love and serve all...no longer are there slave or free, male or female, etc...he came to love us all.
Saturday, December 8, 2007
What's a Definition of Missional?
"Exactly what would a "missional" church do that a "non-missional" church wouldn't do?"
This question was left as a comment on my previous entry about "Being Missional for the Wrong Motive." I'm going to attempt to answer this...and maybe only in part. But let's give it a shot.
First, let's look at what the church has been great about doing over the last twenty years or so. By and large there has been a big push toward cultural relevancy...or making the gospel applicable to those of our surrounding culture. This has come through how we preach (or how we don't preach). We've become sensitive to the seekers and have really rearranged our churches (for better or worse) around the visiting seeker. This was a profound move for a church that by and large had an 'in the world but avoid the world' mentality before that. So we were able to span the gap between the church and the world by making ourselves a little less threatening to the outsider.
One of the things this produced was the megachurch who marketed themselves toward a certain demographic. Then you had the smaller churches that would try to follow their seeker driven models. Houses of worship became more appealing to attend. It wasn't all about the Sunday best suit and tie anymore so much as it was coming together to seek God...or perhaps seek after God. What I'd like to focus on here is the houses of worship and the ministries they produced during this time, because I believe that has a great deal to do with the distinction between missional or not missional.
In order to reach those outside the church became focused on events as a main mechanism for reaching people. It would look to hold events to draw seekers into the church in order to make a connection. This was fantastic at the time because it was bringing people into the church who might have not come before. So churches would hold community festivals, motorcycle Sundays, etc. Point being, the base of all the ministries of the church was still the church. The mentality was still to get the people to come. The old Field of Dreams motto was almost the one of the church..."If we build it...if we have this or that...then they will come.
Therein lies the distinction, at least for me. The 'missional movement' is looking to move the church beyond itself. Let me put it this way:
Less Missionally Focused Church - Picture it as a grocery store.
Missionally Focused Church - Picture it as the distribution center for a food bank.
It may be a poor analogy, but I think it works. The former is founded on people coming to it. The goal of the grocery store is to bring people to it to buy its products. The mission of the distribution center is to be a supplier of the food to other food banks that will feed the people. Both provide food, but they are vastly different in mission. One expects people to come, the other acts as one who goes out and provides. One is a single entity, one works in partnership with others (Please don't carry this too far...I know the grocery store has to have partners to get it's food...that's not my point :-) . In other words the missionally focused church positions itself in such a way where it (church building, facilities, in house ministries) are only a PORTION of the total ministry of the church. This type of church will continually look to reorient itself to be a part of the local community in ways that serve the poor, needy, outcast...or basically just serve their neighbor.
The main issue with the non-missional (and I don't really like slapping that label on anyone) church is that they view their house of worship and their ministries as the place where people need to come to find God. If they want to do something with the community, they reinvent the wheel, put their churches name on it, and then go about doing it themselves without building a partnership with someone who is already doing the same thing in the local community...but they just aren't 'Christian.' The missional church would/should look to join up with anyone out there that's doing what that particular church feels called to, even if they are not people of faith. That is NOT compromising. Rather, that is building relationships and partnerships and supporting the calling both of you feel. In that partnership there is immense opportunity for the Spirit's work and for us to give witness through our conversation and work flavored with the salt and light of the gospel.
I hope, at least in part, this gives some insight into what I see as the difference between the two. This post has gone on long enough, so let's just put it out there and get some feedback before we move on. I have some other thoughts we'll save perhaps for next time.
I'm also shooting Todd Hiestand an e-mail to see if he would comment on the question we're trying to address. He's a local pastor in Philly with a good pulse about such things. Check him out at http://www.toddhiestand.com/. I'm not sure when and if he'll post on it, but check it out either way. It's a great blog.
This question was left as a comment on my previous entry about "Being Missional for the Wrong Motive." I'm going to attempt to answer this...and maybe only in part. But let's give it a shot.
First, let's look at what the church has been great about doing over the last twenty years or so. By and large there has been a big push toward cultural relevancy...or making the gospel applicable to those of our surrounding culture. This has come through how we preach (or how we don't preach). We've become sensitive to the seekers and have really rearranged our churches (for better or worse) around the visiting seeker. This was a profound move for a church that by and large had an 'in the world but avoid the world' mentality before that. So we were able to span the gap between the church and the world by making ourselves a little less threatening to the outsider.
One of the things this produced was the megachurch who marketed themselves toward a certain demographic. Then you had the smaller churches that would try to follow their seeker driven models. Houses of worship became more appealing to attend. It wasn't all about the Sunday best suit and tie anymore so much as it was coming together to seek God...or perhaps seek after God. What I'd like to focus on here is the houses of worship and the ministries they produced during this time, because I believe that has a great deal to do with the distinction between missional or not missional.
In order to reach those outside the church became focused on events as a main mechanism for reaching people. It would look to hold events to draw seekers into the church in order to make a connection. This was fantastic at the time because it was bringing people into the church who might have not come before. So churches would hold community festivals, motorcycle Sundays, etc. Point being, the base of all the ministries of the church was still the church. The mentality was still to get the people to come. The old Field of Dreams motto was almost the one of the church..."If we build it...if we have this or that...then they will come.
Therein lies the distinction, at least for me. The 'missional movement' is looking to move the church beyond itself. Let me put it this way:
Less Missionally Focused Church - Picture it as a grocery store.
Missionally Focused Church - Picture it as the distribution center for a food bank.
It may be a poor analogy, but I think it works. The former is founded on people coming to it. The goal of the grocery store is to bring people to it to buy its products. The mission of the distribution center is to be a supplier of the food to other food banks that will feed the people. Both provide food, but they are vastly different in mission. One expects people to come, the other acts as one who goes out and provides. One is a single entity, one works in partnership with others (Please don't carry this too far...I know the grocery store has to have partners to get it's food...that's not my point :-) . In other words the missionally focused church positions itself in such a way where it (church building, facilities, in house ministries) are only a PORTION of the total ministry of the church. This type of church will continually look to reorient itself to be a part of the local community in ways that serve the poor, needy, outcast...or basically just serve their neighbor.
The main issue with the non-missional (and I don't really like slapping that label on anyone) church is that they view their house of worship and their ministries as the place where people need to come to find God. If they want to do something with the community, they reinvent the wheel, put their churches name on it, and then go about doing it themselves without building a partnership with someone who is already doing the same thing in the local community...but they just aren't 'Christian.' The missional church would/should look to join up with anyone out there that's doing what that particular church feels called to, even if they are not people of faith. That is NOT compromising. Rather, that is building relationships and partnerships and supporting the calling both of you feel. In that partnership there is immense opportunity for the Spirit's work and for us to give witness through our conversation and work flavored with the salt and light of the gospel.
I hope, at least in part, this gives some insight into what I see as the difference between the two. This post has gone on long enough, so let's just put it out there and get some feedback before we move on. I have some other thoughts we'll save perhaps for next time.
I'm also shooting Todd Hiestand an e-mail to see if he would comment on the question we're trying to address. He's a local pastor in Philly with a good pulse about such things. Check him out at http://www.toddhiestand.com/. I'm not sure when and if he'll post on it, but check it out either way. It's a great blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)