On Sunday we visited an institutional/traditional church for the first time in some time. I've been led by God to think in terms of making an impact, so trying a little "this Lord" asking in prayer and action, and seeing how God responds to see where.
My son decided to go off to Sunday School, bored with the main service (funny how it's called a "service" when no service happens). And he got even more bored.
I'm sure the teacher was well-intentioned, but she had the chairs lined up like a classroom, all facing forward to her. Since it was this church's first service in a new location, with them moving from two services to one in the larger facility, she introduced them all to each other and welcomed visitors (Sit down, shut up, I'll do the talking). And there was only 7 kids! Seven kids and the class is lined up in rows. She proceeded with a lesson, and my understanding is all the kids were obviously bored out of their gourds. The method was teaching these kids that church is a boring place of learning. My son said later that the whole experience was more boring than the most boring time he's had at school!
Somewhere along the line, this attitude that "church is where we go to learn about God" crept in. A totally unbiblical concept. For one, church is a community, not a location or event. We do not go to it, we are it. Second, church is not for learning about God -- the Great Commission was issued to disciples, and it is disciples who teach others. Church is for community, for encouraging one another to love and good deeds. Church is not a place to distribute knowledge. Early church history shows us that sermons weren't "popular" until the late 3rd century, and barely known beyond an out of town apostle visiting or a need to address a special issue until the late second century. For centuries, people were taught about God then joined into the community, not the other way around.
I'm convinced that the reason so many people are flooding out the back door of churches, that there is so much church hopping, that as Reggie McNeal says "[people] are not leaving the church because they have lost their faith. They are leaving to preserve their faith" is in fact this heresy that the church is a place you go to learn about God. The teaching always ends up at the same level at a given church - to the new believer, or an intermediate one. Once someone has heard what one church teaches or emphasizes, after some time you've got to move on to grow. Thus the church hopping. The believer who has been caught up in the knowledge myth then eventually finds no place to go, unless they rise to a place of power and finds a way to fire a preacher in order to hire a new one. It's been there, learned there, bought the T-shirt.
Search
Custom Search
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Rethinking church planting
The Great Commission commands us to teach the nations (disciple all nations). But what does scripture mean by "nation".
It's always good to question the meanings of words we find in scripture - they are translated from another language after all, and sometimes for the flow of a passage a word rather than a descriptive phrase is given as a translation, to keep the translation from sounding awkward. Sometimes another word is given just to prevent it from sounding "weird" - for instance, baptism is a transliteration rather than a translation, it actually means "burial" or dipping.
Others, like the word "nation", is generally first thought of in other meanings, and thus often a bad word for the translation, but remains due to tradition or other reasons. The Greek word translated "nation" most commonly from Matthew 28:19 is the same word that we get the word "ethnic" from. It is actually a word that can translated "people-group" or "culture" or "subculture". And perhaps the latter choice is more appropriate in today's world in order to convey the original meaning to modern readers.
Thinking in these lines, imagine what it means to modern missionology. Today's society with its lack of unifying elements has splintered to thousands of subcultures, all spurned on by hundreds of entertainment options many catering to smaller and smaller niches, with the internet spurring even smaller subcultures. According to the new book The Rabbit and the Elephant: Why Small Is the New Big for Today's Church by Tony and Felicity Dale and George Barna, the University of Texas (Austin) consists of over 1000 subcultures - over a thousand little "nations", meaning each averages less than 50 members.
I see two ramifications of such a view of "nation" - first, mission work becomes as much a domestic issue as one for overseas. Taking the case of the University of Texas and extrapolating to the whole of the United States, that could mean between that the US is a "nation" of hundreds of thousands to millions of "nations". Reaching those little subcultures is a herculean task without God, and forces us to rethink missions.
Second of all, think of the size that means to the average "church". To reach each of those little nations at the University of Texas, for most you are talking at reaching populations less than 50 each, and its easy to see that many would be less than 20. To form churches within those "nations", most churches are going to have a max possible size of less than 50.
God's call is not to make a nations of disciples, but rather make disciples of nations. Yet most mission techniques and approaches we have inherited from previous generations are in effect requiring us to take on the near impossible task of making nations of disciples to reach every nation. These approaches that involve making churches that support vast infrastructures involving paid pastors, etc invariable require us to pull disciples out of nations to form a new nation, to change their culture.
Would it not be better to redeem these cultures, to form churches within them, training up these smaller churches to reach those cultures close to them and forming other small churches within those cultures? Would it not be better missionology to think small? To make disciples within new cultures, and leave them in those cultures to make other disciples?
I think it would. But I still wonder what it would look like in detail and what it means to me to think this way.
It's always good to question the meanings of words we find in scripture - they are translated from another language after all, and sometimes for the flow of a passage a word rather than a descriptive phrase is given as a translation, to keep the translation from sounding awkward. Sometimes another word is given just to prevent it from sounding "weird" - for instance, baptism is a transliteration rather than a translation, it actually means "burial" or dipping.
Others, like the word "nation", is generally first thought of in other meanings, and thus often a bad word for the translation, but remains due to tradition or other reasons. The Greek word translated "nation" most commonly from Matthew 28:19 is the same word that we get the word "ethnic" from. It is actually a word that can translated "people-group" or "culture" or "subculture". And perhaps the latter choice is more appropriate in today's world in order to convey the original meaning to modern readers.
Thinking in these lines, imagine what it means to modern missionology. Today's society with its lack of unifying elements has splintered to thousands of subcultures, all spurned on by hundreds of entertainment options many catering to smaller and smaller niches, with the internet spurring even smaller subcultures. According to the new book The Rabbit and the Elephant: Why Small Is the New Big for Today's Church by Tony and Felicity Dale and George Barna, the University of Texas (Austin) consists of over 1000 subcultures - over a thousand little "nations", meaning each averages less than 50 members.
I see two ramifications of such a view of "nation" - first, mission work becomes as much a domestic issue as one for overseas. Taking the case of the University of Texas and extrapolating to the whole of the United States, that could mean between that the US is a "nation" of hundreds of thousands to millions of "nations". Reaching those little subcultures is a herculean task without God, and forces us to rethink missions.
Second of all, think of the size that means to the average "church". To reach each of those little nations at the University of Texas, for most you are talking at reaching populations less than 50 each, and its easy to see that many would be less than 20. To form churches within those "nations", most churches are going to have a max possible size of less than 50.
God's call is not to make a nations of disciples, but rather make disciples of nations. Yet most mission techniques and approaches we have inherited from previous generations are in effect requiring us to take on the near impossible task of making nations of disciples to reach every nation. These approaches that involve making churches that support vast infrastructures involving paid pastors, etc invariable require us to pull disciples out of nations to form a new nation, to change their culture.
Would it not be better to redeem these cultures, to form churches within them, training up these smaller churches to reach those cultures close to them and forming other small churches within those cultures? Would it not be better missionology to think small? To make disciples within new cultures, and leave them in those cultures to make other disciples?
I think it would. But I still wonder what it would look like in detail and what it means to me to think this way.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Another Father's Day in America
And another day of calling men to not let fatherhood end at conception.
Another day of calling men to be leaders in their homes.
Another day of ... calling men to some sort of responsibility.
One of my first blog posts addressed the "real" issue here. The problem with all this call to men to "step up" is that to quote again the movie Fight Club, "We're a generation of men raised by women". To quote myself, it is worse - "We're a generation of men descended from a generation of men descended from a ... each raised by women". With each passing generation, this is increasingly true, with another generation added.
So the "call to arms" to men kind of echoes hollow ... what does it look like? Isn't it more than just "involvement" of any kind?
Our churches are worse. They call hollow, hurting, wounded men to fill roles, that of father, without offering to make them whole. Jesus' ministry was to restore and make whole his people, something churches have neglected to call people, especially men, to "responsibility and accountability". It's like telling a man with a broken leg that hasn't even been set and who's never run a 5K to get up and run a marathon. No offer of healing, no real offer of training, just a call to "do it".
Jesus started his ministry (as recorded in Luke) by quoting Isaiah 61. Look at the original source and keep reading - the audience of the time would have been aware of this context ...
Healing, liberty, freedom, then they will be "oaks of righteousness". The work of Christ is first, then the work of men will flow from that restored wholeness.
Churches and leaders need to stop preaching at men to step up, and instead start being "little Christs" (the original meaning of "Christian") and help heal and free men.
Another day of calling men to be leaders in their homes.
Another day of ... calling men to some sort of responsibility.
One of my first blog posts addressed the "real" issue here. The problem with all this call to men to "step up" is that to quote again the movie Fight Club, "We're a generation of men raised by women". To quote myself, it is worse - "We're a generation of men descended from a generation of men descended from a ... each raised by women". With each passing generation, this is increasingly true, with another generation added.
So the "call to arms" to men kind of echoes hollow ... what does it look like? Isn't it more than just "involvement" of any kind?
Our churches are worse. They call hollow, hurting, wounded men to fill roles, that of father, without offering to make them whole. Jesus' ministry was to restore and make whole his people, something churches have neglected to call people, especially men, to "responsibility and accountability". It's like telling a man with a broken leg that hasn't even been set and who's never run a 5K to get up and run a marathon. No offer of healing, no real offer of training, just a call to "do it".
Jesus started his ministry (as recorded in Luke) by quoting Isaiah 61. Look at the original source and keep reading - the audience of the time would have been aware of this context ...
The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me,
because the LORD has anointed me
to bring good news to the poor;
he has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,
to proclaim liberty to the captives,
and the opening of the prison to those who are bound;
2 to proclaim the year of the LORD’s favor,
and the day of vengeance of our God;
to comfort all who mourn;
3to grant to those who mourn in Zion—
to give them a beautiful headdress instead of ashes,
the oil of gladness instead of mourning,
the garment of praise instead of a faint spirit;
that they may be called oaks of righteousness,
the planting of the LORD, that he may be glorified.
4 They shall build up the ancient ruins;
they shall raise up the former devastations;
they shall repair the ruined cities,
the devastations of many generations.
Healing, liberty, freedom, then they will be "oaks of righteousness". The work of Christ is first, then the work of men will flow from that restored wholeness.
Churches and leaders need to stop preaching at men to step up, and instead start being "little Christs" (the original meaning of "Christian") and help heal and free men.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Someone explain to me this ...
I have a hard time understanding denominationalism as it is traditionally practiced.
Maybe it is because I grew up with and as an adult always attended independent churches - ones where the line of earth bound authority ended locally, within the congregation ... though I did attend a church plant once were there was a oversight board consisting of several about the country. But once a local board of elders was established, that oversight board was abolished.
If "our method is the message", then traditional denomination practice is sending a message contradictory to the Bible. Clearly, with the temple curtain torn with the cross, the barrier of a priesthood between God and the common man is gone. Hebrews explains as much. Peter expresses it as "the priesthood of all believers". We approach Jesus directly, and his Holy Spirit is our guide and counselor. The New Testament is clear - there is no mediator between God and the common man anymore other than Jesus. The priesthood as being separate from all believers is dead.
But the method of denominationalism seems to contradict. Decisions locally are limited, and direction is typically from another city, another state, or even another continent. There are layers of hierarchies and intermediates. The message is that the common man is not to be trusted to hear God - and for that matter, neither is the local pastor in "important matters".
The message of this method seems to so contradict the work of Christ. What am I missing in this equation?
Maybe it is because I grew up with and as an adult always attended independent churches - ones where the line of earth bound authority ended locally, within the congregation ... though I did attend a church plant once were there was a oversight board consisting of several about the country. But once a local board of elders was established, that oversight board was abolished.
If "our method is the message", then traditional denomination practice is sending a message contradictory to the Bible. Clearly, with the temple curtain torn with the cross, the barrier of a priesthood between God and the common man is gone. Hebrews explains as much. Peter expresses it as "the priesthood of all believers". We approach Jesus directly, and his Holy Spirit is our guide and counselor. The New Testament is clear - there is no mediator between God and the common man anymore other than Jesus. The priesthood as being separate from all believers is dead.
But the method of denominationalism seems to contradict. Decisions locally are limited, and direction is typically from another city, another state, or even another continent. There are layers of hierarchies and intermediates. The message is that the common man is not to be trusted to hear God - and for that matter, neither is the local pastor in "important matters".
The message of this method seems to so contradict the work of Christ. What am I missing in this equation?
Thursday, May 21, 2009
How churches can facilitate growing disciples
In 2004 (according to Skye Jenathi in Divine Commodity - I thought it was more recent), the "flagship" of megachurches Willow Creek CC near Chicago got back the results of a study commissioned to look at the effectiveness of their ministry. Their philosophy had been to create a variety of programs and services for people to participate in, with the belief that frequent participation would produce disciples - as characterized by increasing love for God and other people.
In other words, do institutions produce disciples? Can programs ignite love? The study encompassed the 15000 member Willow Creek and 25 other churches that use similar strategies.
The answer was a resounding no.
What did they find that did work?
Personal Bible reading, prayer and meditation, meaningful relationship with a friend or mentor, and serving others.
Of that list, the first half of the list is best learned to be done in the context of a meaningful relationship with a mentor, not a program. The last one, probably can be done in a "program" but finding one's best spot to serve is from my experience best done with a mentor or friend to bounce things off with.
Why do so many hate going to church? It's just frustrating wanting to grow and with church programs and services all focused on the wrong things, it consumes time away from productive growth time.
Churches, IMO, would best serve and reach out through more "match-making" like activities, so men and women can find those meaningful relationships. Church's role should be to foster relationship. Willow Creek was not the first to discover that fostering knowledge or how-tos is not effective in producing disciples. We can hope they are the last.
In other words, do institutions produce disciples? Can programs ignite love? The study encompassed the 15000 member Willow Creek and 25 other churches that use similar strategies.
The answer was a resounding no.
What did they find that did work?
Personal Bible reading, prayer and meditation, meaningful relationship with a friend or mentor, and serving others.
Of that list, the first half of the list is best learned to be done in the context of a meaningful relationship with a mentor, not a program. The last one, probably can be done in a "program" but finding one's best spot to serve is from my experience best done with a mentor or friend to bounce things off with.
Why do so many hate going to church? It's just frustrating wanting to grow and with church programs and services all focused on the wrong things, it consumes time away from productive growth time.
Churches, IMO, would best serve and reach out through more "match-making" like activities, so men and women can find those meaningful relationships. Church's role should be to foster relationship. Willow Creek was not the first to discover that fostering knowledge or how-tos is not effective in producing disciples. We can hope they are the last.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Corporate worship a "delusion"?
Men invent means and methods of coming at God's love, they learn rules and set up devices to remind them of that love, and it seems like a world of trouble to bring oneself into the consciousness of God's presence. Yet it might be so simple. Is it not quicker and easier to do our common business wholly for the love of him?
That was Nicholas Herman, aka Brother Lawrence. At another time, Lawrence referred to those who thought corporate worship brought one closer to God as suffering a "great delusion". I think he might be on to something there to an extent. Following another person's script, I cannot recall when that has drawn me closer. Ignoring what has gone on around me and practicing solitude and silencing my thoughts of what's happening - yes, then I've sensed God's presence. And in corporate worship that was unscripted - as a group I was in did some in TX on a Friday night once a month - there were times then.
If corporate worship is a time to be in God's presence, Nick and I are in an agreement - nothing that is actually a part of scripted corporate worship brings God's presence more obvious, or in any way makes me more aware of it than when I came into the room. And if worship is to be us praising God and such, scripture makes it clear, dating back to the Old Testament, that what God wants from us is not the praise of our lips and to hear us sing about him, but rather "to do justice, love kindness and walk humbly with" him (Micah 6:8).
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Rebranding
I'm continuing to reread Skye Jenathi's Divine Conspiracy, slower this time (last time I read whole chapters at a time), and I'm in the middle of the chapter on branding.
Branding is something that has taken over marketing - rather than good products, you establish a solid name. When ValuJet went into the swamp, they rebranded as AirTran and are relatively thriving. McDonald's found that if you slap a McDonald's label on carrots or milk, kids think it tastes better.
Skye brings up much about branding in the churches, but misses just as much I realize in reflection. One of his big points is about the way worship is our major branding of churches - not theology or doctrine, but rather what is the music styling.
But he misses some major possible points (maybe as editor of the christian magazine Leadership he had to play it slightly cautious and avoid the obvious?). An example of branding - in much of our nation, when a new Southern Baptist congregation opens its doors, the "Southern Baptist" part is deeply buried. It is the new local "community church" or some other non-descriptive name, hiding itself to look like a non-denominational church. I've seen others do the same. Nearby at an elementary school, there's an Anglican church meeting as "Trinity Church" - never knew it was Anglican until visiting another Anglican church and they mentioned in announcements about a joint Thanksgiving dinner with them.
Another one more daring to make - the brand "Christian" is tainted. Biblically, disciple is a much more common label for the believers. Christian is actually mentioned all of what, once? in all the Bible. We've adopted it as a universal community, but with the label tainted, do we need to hold onto it as tightly as we do?
More over, other labels would be more descriptive of what we are to be anyway. I prefer disciple, as by definition a disciple follows the master in order to learn at the master's feet and become like the master. "Christian" has almost become a political word. "Friends" or "Friends of Christ" would be another we could use, as Jesus did use it to refer to his closest disciples. "Followers" would be as justifiable from the Bible as "Christian". They are a lot of terms we could use that are just as justified from a single Bible reading than "Christian".
If we could drop the use of "Christian", with its baggage, and use "disciple" or "friends of Jesus" or "Christ follower", would we find an easier time in our mission(s)?
It worked for ValuJet.
Branding is something that has taken over marketing - rather than good products, you establish a solid name. When ValuJet went into the swamp, they rebranded as AirTran and are relatively thriving. McDonald's found that if you slap a McDonald's label on carrots or milk, kids think it tastes better.
Skye brings up much about branding in the churches, but misses just as much I realize in reflection. One of his big points is about the way worship is our major branding of churches - not theology or doctrine, but rather what is the music styling.
But he misses some major possible points (maybe as editor of the christian magazine Leadership he had to play it slightly cautious and avoid the obvious?). An example of branding - in much of our nation, when a new Southern Baptist congregation opens its doors, the "Southern Baptist" part is deeply buried. It is the new local "community church" or some other non-descriptive name, hiding itself to look like a non-denominational church. I've seen others do the same. Nearby at an elementary school, there's an Anglican church meeting as "Trinity Church" - never knew it was Anglican until visiting another Anglican church and they mentioned in announcements about a joint Thanksgiving dinner with them.
Another one more daring to make - the brand "Christian" is tainted. Biblically, disciple is a much more common label for the believers. Christian is actually mentioned all of what, once? in all the Bible. We've adopted it as a universal community, but with the label tainted, do we need to hold onto it as tightly as we do?
More over, other labels would be more descriptive of what we are to be anyway. I prefer disciple, as by definition a disciple follows the master in order to learn at the master's feet and become like the master. "Christian" has almost become a political word. "Friends" or "Friends of Christ" would be another we could use, as Jesus did use it to refer to his closest disciples. "Followers" would be as justifiable from the Bible as "Christian". They are a lot of terms we could use that are just as justified from a single Bible reading than "Christian".
If we could drop the use of "Christian", with its baggage, and use "disciple" or "friends of Jesus" or "Christ follower", would we find an easier time in our mission(s)?
It worked for ValuJet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
