Craig Gross & Being the Church in Sin City

Thought this was a really cool snippet of what Craig and The Strip Church are doing to be the Church in Las Vegas.


Craig Gross on Ministry in Sin City from Url Scaramanga on Vimeo.

Thoughts...

Interview with author Ron Martoia [Part 2]

...continued

5. I found in a simple google search a number of overly-demonizing critiques of your work. How do we work to be the change in our church communities and handle the often 'demonizing' accusations of those who disagree?

Yes great question and yes I am a reincarnation of the devil himself apparently according to those website along with a host of others you and I know. I think gentleness is the only road on this one. Stages of human development and faith development tell us that you can't grasp a different level of development other than your own center of gravity. So I don't have hope for others to just jump in head first. But I do think there are some very well place questions we can ask that really put people in a place of evaluating whether or not the Christianity they are defending is the real deal, their personalized construction overlaid with all sorts of baggage, or a modernistic version that has canonized the way we have been doing it the last 200 years as THE way. We have to ask really good questions about the core issues and the outcomes we are getting.

6. Others who criticize your work say you analyze the problems well and it resonates with them, but you offer few solutions. It seems to me that your work intentionally offers a great framework for us to take and adapt in our context and sphere of influence. What do you say?

Well you are apparently the careful reader (lol)! Here is the deal, everyone wants in the box packaged answers. That is a product of the assembly line industrial revolution. We have been doing that for some time. Go to conferences get the in the box small group stuff, or evangelism training package or the usher greeter training kit.... you know what I mean. So people want more of the same. But if we haven't learned anything in the last 100 years haven't we learned that all the in the box programs really haven't brought deep lasting life change? I am convinced that indigeniety is the key. You need some sound processes that you indigenize in your local context in ways that work with who you and your leadership team are for the ethos of your church and the people you are trying to reach. One size does not fit all in fact one size means it fits everyone poorly. So I try and avoid the platitudinous prescriptions that people are always pressing for.

7. If you were asked to boil the whole of Scripture down to its most basic elements, what would those be?

We are imago dei creatures infected as we are, and the good news is that shalom wholeness and wellness is available to every single person which reverses that infection. Our role on the planet is to broker that shalom wholeness and bring everything back to the original edenic state. That includes me, others, and the entire creation.

8. If you could mentor us in only a few sentences, what would you say to young leaders in the church of the U.S?

Don't let anyone convince you to do reruns, do overs or keep doing the way we have always done it. Reflect and seek interior quiet more than you do. Help people navigate liminal space more than pump them full of doctrine. Give up monologue and engage in dialogue. The million dollar skill set into the 21st century will be dealing with great emotional process in your own life and the lives of those around you. It is the #1 I'm being asked about these days and one of the main things I am talking about.

Thank you so much Ron for taking the time to not only answer my questions but also to speak into our lives.

If you haven't read his books, they are a must read on your list. You can find out more about Ron Martoia and some of his current projects on his Velocity Culture site.

Thoughts?

Interview with author Ron Martoia [Part 1]

I recently got the opportunity to send some questions to Ron Martoia for the benefit of all the readers of Tomorrow's Church. Ron has written a number of books and articles, but his most recent, Transformational Architecture, has been a really good read for me. It is both stimulating and challenging - I highly recomend it. Ron is on a mission to recapture our understanding of God, to be fuller and to help us regain our voice in today's culture. Enjoy.

1. Ron, what has God been speaking to you about lately?

I guess there are a few things that have been occupying my thoughts these days. 1. The need for us to engage a new transformational model of life change. All our information exchange is apparently not getting it done...lives aren't being changed if Gallup and Barna are even close to correct. 2. We need to figure out how to revoice Christianity. By revoice I mean what Karen Armstrong alludes to in The Great Transformation. We are known for being legalistic (think Dave Kinnaman's research in UnChristian) and narrow. How do we revoice and reposition our following Jesus in a way that is inclusive and compelling? 3. I am more convinced than ever we need a blending of kataphatic and apophatic spirituality, in fact this is the focus or the book I am working on right now.

2. For those that have not yet read Static or Transformational Architecture, how would you summarize those works into a couple of sentences.

Static was an effort to deal with 5 big static creating terms and reframe into a larger story the common fall-redemption story so common in evangelicalism, a story that makes it sound like the gospel exists to get people to heaven. Instead I suggest a creation-fall-redemption-restoration paradigm that starts the story of God with imago dei of Gen 1 instead of the fall of Gen 3. Kind of neat to start the story where God starts it huh? TA was an effort to take that bigger framing story and put it on the ground in spiritual conversations. A sort of postmodern...can I say the word....ugh...evangelism. Hate that word. But the point of TA is to help people rethink God, the goal of relationship with God and how to enter that from a variety of new vantage points...like the drive we all have to be god, and the propensity to see God in creation.

3. The challenge to find the 'fuller' narrative of God is a beautiful opportunity to rethink our dialogue (or lack of) in our culture. How do we take that concept and apply it to the politics of our country? Or do we? The Christian voice exercised in the Democratic process seems to only play to our disadvantage. I think many of my younger generation feel disillusioned by how to play our faith out in a political way. What insights would you offer us?

Boy that is a loaded one but let me make a couple really brief observations. 1. Jesus' interaction with the politics of the day as a mechanism of change for the masses didn't seem to be a high agenda item for him. 2. While I think we need to work all we can for a more just society I wonder what models Jesus left us that invite us to plunge in neck deep to the political process. I struggle with answering that well.

4. Your description of 1P (first person), 2P (second person) and 3P (third person) views of God was really eye opening. I had not previously considered how I unintentionally interact with and perceive God. What are some ways you engage the 1P and 3P views of God in your own journey?

I often do field gaze mediation, a kind of eyes open centering practice that is a very 3P practice. My 1P experiences are more of me learning to realize this person sitting across from me is imago dei. They are "breath of God" creatures. What does this mean to how I love, interact, not judge them? Loving them as self is a 1P practice. Not loving them as I love my self that is very egoic. But loving them as if they were self...and they are...I'm imago dei and so are they. This is a daily practice I engage, and has it ever challenged me, uncovered my impure motives, nastiness, and how self centered I am.

...more to come tomorrow.

Missional Ministry

This is a re:post from Craig Groeschel's Swerve blog. I thought this was a great insight on how to live our Christian lives and go about making disciples.

If you plan to reach the next generation for Christ, don’t ask them to believe what you believe, instead invite them to do what you do.

Beliefs are a dime a dozen. This generation has seen every variety of spiritual beliefs you could imagine (and many you couldn’t imagine).

They’re extremely turned off by people who don’t live what they claim to believe.

This generation doesn’t want to hear about what you believe. They want to see your beliefs in actions. And if you’re daring enough to live like Jesus, you’ll have a shot at reaching the next generation.

• If your version of Christianity is limited to what you’re against, you’ll not likely reach many.
• If, on the other hand, your faith is so alive you must feed the hungry, clothe the naked, heal the sick, and love the outcasts—all in the name of Christ, the King, you will attract interest.

As strange as it might sound, if you truly live a missional and Spirit filled life, the young generation might join you and do what you do, then one day believe what you believe.

I think this is a great model for discipleship, stop instructing people to believe the way you do and just start inviting them to do what you do. Thoughts?

Living Faithful

So do not worry about tomorrow. Let tomorrow worry about itself. Living faithfully is a large enough task for today.

Jesus of Nazereth, Matthew 6.34


I have been re:reading the Gospels as of late, re:finding Jesus' teachings and re:evaluating his interactions with his culture. And as I read about God's care for the birds of the air and the lilies of the field, it challenged me on a personal level, as it relates to the church of tomorrow.

I like to think that this blogging effort here on Tomorrow's Church is about dreaming of what the Church should be and could be in the future. But, it is plenty about worry for me, worrying we've messed it up too much, worried we've maimed the voice of Jesus' teachings, worried that we must re:found ourselves in the person of Jesus - worried.

Seems so silly doesn't it? The Church is the Bride of Christ, could not be mine - God's hand has been authoring this redemption story, not mine. I did not start this story and I can not end it either. I have a part to play, but it is not universal and beckons me to live a humble and faithful life today! Gandhi was so right when he said we must be the change we seek.

Living faithfully is a huge undertaking and enough work for today. Perhaps on some levels we have over-strategized, over-criticized, over-amplified the need for 'tomorrow-thinking' and under-delivered on today. We always want the bigger, the grandiose, the keys of knowledge about the future - yet we fall considerable short on the simplicity of Jesus' teachings. Loving our neighbor as ourselves is one such example and a great starting point for today.

I want to be the change I seek. And though I'm not advocating abandoning this blog or saying we should not plan and dream about the future, I am saying it should come with a heavy dose of humility and reality. A reality that God's in control, God can be trusted and God has not promised us tomorrow but has given us today to live faithfully within.

I've got a good start, but a long way to go in being this and doing it faithfully - you?

An Important Distinction

This struck me as I'm trying to finish The Forgotten Ways and what a task it has been. I feel like Jacob and I've been wrestling this book forever - but it has been good. So instead of saying it my way, I'll just quote Mr Hirsch.

Our problem, it seems, is that we too quickly identify the concrete-historical expressions of church as the body of Christ. And while there is a truth to this, for the church is the body of Christ, perhaps the greater truth is that the body of Christ is the church. When we say that the church is the body of Christ, it claims a certain authority for a particular expression of church. To say that the body of Christ is the church is to open up possibilities as to how it might physically and organizationally express itself. This doesn't just localize it to one particular expression of church. The body can express itself in many different ways and forms. The distinction is paradigmatic. To restate it in these terms enables us to escape the monopolizing grip that the institutional image of church holds over our theological imaginations, and allows us to undertake a journey of reimagining what it means to be God's people in our own day and in our own situations.

Thoughts...

Conditions of God's Unconditional Love

Over the Holiday's I was fortunate to have some time to connect with Mike and Candice (who I hope will post something to Tomorrow's Church soon, so everyone doesn't grow weary of Kevin's endless rambling and yes, I just referred to myself in the 3rd person). But Mike and I had some time to dialogue about church thought and I wanted to share some of the conversation.

We have a peculiar faith that intertwines the seeming dichotomy between the unconditional love of a Creator and the conditions of restoring the relationship between Creator and creation.

So, for those of us called and captivated by who the church is today and what it needs to be tomorrow, we have work to do in a world that shrugs absolutes. Our world is comfortable with the idea of a God who loves and who says there is nothing that can separate us from that love (Romans 8). However, our world disdains attaching any condition to that love. An example would be peoples comfort and respect for the man named Jesus, like they respect Gandhi and MLK, but are not comfortable with accepting claims that Jesus is more than a man or for that matter, the only way to God.

I recently had a conversation with a pastor, in his middle age, great guy, and we were discussing the swinging pendulum of imbalanced theology and Christian movements. Like a rubber band, we seem to go from one side, often erring on extreme, to the other side - reaching a whole other extreme. And we came to the story of the Rich Young Ruler (Luke 18) and Jesus' interaction with him. Jesus not only saw what was lacking in the young ruler's faith, but shot straight to the issue - didn't pretend, didn't glaze over the issue - and then was willing to let him walk away saddened.

This pastor rightly accused our younger generation of being unwilling to let people walk away saddened by the conditions and the reality of the Liberating King story. I believe we must seek a balance in being able to dialogue with the world, engaged in our culture and still maintain our absolutes and the conditions of the gospel. And as I said to him, we are only trying to respond to his generations all-to-willingness to let people walk away not only saddened, but also pissed off.

There are a lot of thoughts about this, but I will end it with this; We have to bring balance to our practical theology and interactions with the world we are called to make disciples of. Discipleship necessitates conformity on some level, necessitates abiding in and under the conditions of God's unconditional love. Our challenge lies in simplifying what our absolutes really are. We must resist denominationalizing/dividing/separating over peripheral theological issues and center again on the love and person of Jesus Christ.

Thoughts...responses...

Kill the Clergy! [Part 2]

Yes, I took a long time in coming back to finish Part 2 of this thought process - my apologies. You can read Part 1 here and catch back up on where I was going with this, but I've been thinking about this a lot lately. And with saying that, I'm nervous I won't be able to fully articulate what I'm feeling, but will do my best and look to hear your input.

I believe a key in killing the terminology of clergy and ridding ourselves of the separation between clergy and laity is no longer using the word 'pastor.' Wait...what? Let me explain...

1st - We are all pastors and we all have pastoral roles to play in our families, work places and circle of friends. We are all called into the priesthood of God's Kingdom (mission) through our marriage with Christ and the Body. Thus we all have responsibility in loving, leading and caring for those we are gifted with the opportunity to have relationship with.

2nd - Because we don't realize the 1st, we have done a poor job of fulfilling our role. I believe we are all theologians too, though most would never call themselves a theologian, we are nonetheless so. Because we are human we occupy a unique space in creation, being fully physical and fully spiritual. You can be no more 'less human' than you can be 'less spiritual', which is exactly why throughout history humanity has struggled to grasp truth and either define or deny the existence of Deity. We are all theologians and we are all pastors and we need to start doing a better job of them.

3rd - This has all lead to an unhealthy and unbiblical set of expectations for those burdened with the title of 'pastor'. I have written about this aspect on my other blog (here), but when pastors become superstars and anything more than just human (another person trying to figure out this journey of life), pain and hypocrisy are inevitable. When Catholic Priests molest young boys, it is not a sign that they weren't 'holy men,' it's just a sign of the same broken human condition we all share. And it is the same when a pastor has a moral failure - they were never more than human, though we allowed them to be, and in a lot of cases, we thrusted them onto the pedestal ourselves. We shouldn't be 'more devastated' by their failure, we should be just as devastated by our own, remembering that sin is sin and we all fall short.

4th - So we must move from the title of pastor, to an understanding of leadership and influence. We need to have a more holistic understanding of what being a pastor means. We are all called to be disciple-makers and some are called to be apostles, some prophets, some teachers, some administrative, but we are all called. And changing our terminology will free the leaders of our local church communities to fit the role God designed for them and their passions. They will not have to conform to all the vague, unbiblical and unbalanced expectations that are encompassed in the title of 'pastor.' Instead, they will be free to lead us as they follow God and His calling for them - no longer having to pretend to be the marrying-burying-teaching-preaching-hospital-visiting-counseling-pastor the Church has come to expect of them.

So many more thoughts come to mind, but I'll stop here and ask you for your thoughts...

Defining 'Missional'

Micheal Frost added this to the conversation on 'what it means to be missional.'



In an interview on The Missional Blog, Frost said

our christology should lead to our missiology which in turn will lead to our ecclesiology

That is an interesting way of guiding the conversation. When we come to grips with the Jesus found in the gospels, it defines our mission as we translate it into our lives, our world and our culture. Thus, church is an outgrowing and a byproduct of moving from Jesus to His mission for us. I agree with him that many times we start with how to do church and then try to figure out mission as a byproduct of that.

I said this in the 'comments' the other day, but I think you could define missional as living in a way to stay outside the 'stifling equilibrium' of our traditions, denominations and doctrines. Never abandoning them, never abolishing them, but as Jesus did - fulfilling them - renewing them and their meaning in our lives.

In other words it is recognizing the tendencies of our human condition to seek comfort and predictability and finding ways to live continually outside of that. Finding ways to live outside of our own might or ability and instead, engaged in the adventure of depending on God and following his design for your life.

Thoughts...

Continuing The Missional Convo...

Below is Alan Hirsch's reply to the earlier post by Dan Kimbal and the conversation we've been having.

Dan, as someone who comes out clearly for the missional reframing of church, I do share some concerns about reproduction (fruitfulness). Anyone concerned with Jesus’ commission should be.

The comments so far are excellent and so I will just add a few more.

* I certainly don’t believe that attractional is not working. What I have said is that it has appeal to a shrinking segment of the population, and that persistence with a church growth style attractionalism, is in the long run, a counsel of despair. Are you suggesting that we simply stay with what we have got? Surely not bro?

* If we persist with our standard measurements for mission, we will miss the point. The issue is what idea of church is more faithful to the Scriptures. Genuine fruitfulness, surely, cannot simply be measured by numbers but by ‘making disciples.’ How does one measure that? By all accounts, current churches are made up largely of admirers of Jesus but few genuine disciples/followers–this is not a biblical idea of fruitfulness!

* Besides, the early church would not measure up to the current metrics!! If Rodney Stark is right, there was only 25,000 by year 100AD. Not exactly mind boggling church growth. Some attractional churches are larger.

* If we stick with the prevailing measures, we will miss the level of incarnational engagement with quantitative measures alone. How do we measure that? Incarnation takes time and loving presence (witness) among a people. Working with post-Christian folks ain’t easy because we have lost our credibility and have to work darn hard to regain it. I think there is much work to do here.

The only other thing I will say is that we as believers, live by a vision of what can be…we cannot allow ourselves to be constrained by pragmatics alone. Vision precludes that and is driven by holy discontent to see a greater manifestation of the Kingdom.

With love and respect.
AH

Thoughts...

Missional Fruit

The following are thoughts from Dan Kimball on the 'not-yet-proven' status of the missional movement.

I hope I am wrong. For the past few years, I have been observing, listening, and asking questions about the missional movement. I have a suspicion that the missional model has not yet proven itself beyond the level of theory. Again, I hope I am wrong.

We all agree with the theory of being a community of God that defines and organizes itself around the purpose of being an agent of God's mission in the world. But the missional conversation often goes a step further by dismissing the "attractional" model of church as ineffective. Some say that creating better programs, preaching, and worship services so people "come to us" isn't going to cut it anymore. But here's my dilemma—I see no evidence to verify this claim.

You can read the whole article here.

He raises some interesting points, but I think the greater question is, "Who is your church trying to reach?" The answer to that question can lead to harder, less traveled paths of ministry. It can also lead to a more relationally based ministry that is hard to quantify in attendance, but is no less impacting.

Thoughts?

If S*Bucks Marketed Like The Church...

Jave-lujah!

Thought this was an interesting perspective on how unnatural we make the church experience for people.



This was posted by Mike Foster over on the Ethur blog:
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTHING I DO IS “CHRISTIAN”
Posted November 6th, 2008

I’ve been very fortunate to work on and create some successful projects. I am always humbled to have been a part of creating initiatives that engage people.

While many of the projects have influenced people of faith, I consider none of them Christian projects. I do not create anything specifically focused on that particular target market. I rarely consider them in the generation of a concept or a project.

And before I scare you off let me just say that I am a follower of Jesus. I love the Church. I hope everything I do honors my creator.

So here is my tip for launching a successful idea. Market to humans. Not Christians.

If what you are doing doesn’t communicate or connect to God haters, people of other faiths, or those who don’t subscribe to your beliefs, then you’re in for a rough ride.
--------------------------------------------------------
Thoughts?

The Christian, the Artist and the Gardeners

It has been a while since anyone has posted on here - including myself. I am painfully trying to finish collecting my thoughts for two good posts. In the mean time I read this article off of the 'Out of Ur' blog and loved it.

---------------------------------------------------

The Fall 2008 issue of Leadership contains a new feature: The Golden Canon book award. One of our finalists was Andy Crouch's Culture Making: Recovering our creative calling (IVP), the much-praised contribution to the ongoing conversation about the relationship between Christianity and culture. Here's a taste of Andy's prose, a tidbit to spark conversation.

The postures of the artist and the gardener have a lot in common. Both begin with contemplation, paying close attention to what is already there. The gardener looks carefully at the landscape; the existing plants, both flowers and weeds; the way the sun fall on the land. The artist regards her subject, her canvas, her paints with care to discern what she can make with them.

And then, after contemplation, the artist and the gardener both adopt a posture of purposeful work. They bring creativity and effort to their calling...They are creaturely creators, tending and shaping the world that original Creator made.

I wonder what we Christians are known for in the world outside our churches. Are we known as critics, consumers, copiers, condemners of culture? I'm afraid so. Why aren't we known as cultivators--people who tend and nourish what is best in human culture, who do the harsh and painstaking work to preserve the best of what people before us have done? Why aren't we known as creators--people who dare to think and do something that has never been thought or done before, something that makes the world more welcoming and thrilling and beautiful?

---------------------------------------------------

Thoughts?

It's Not About Titles - It's About The Way

So I read an article called 'R.I.P. Emergent Church' (here), and it made me realize something; I think we get so caught up in the who's doing what and how, that we lose our Way.

This article is saying that the Emergent Church movement is dead, at the least the term is dead. Why? Because the term 'emergent' has become so convoluted and means too many different things to the individuals that claim it. It's kinda like saying 'I'm a Christian' - which means exactly nothing. The statement 'I'm a Christian' does not necessitate the Romans definition (10.9-10), nor does it mean you are pursuing the Way, the Kingdom of God, the God-design path for you life, etc, etc, etc. But it is no surprise that the emergent movement is dieing and it won't be when 'whatever comes next' dies too.

So, this relates with an earlier post (actually a re-post of some Mark Batterson thoughts) about how leaders often aren't true to themselves and how important that is for the missionally minded leaders. We mix up the Way of Jesus with the way that is working for this church or that leader.

But it brings me to a humble realization - the changes I want for Tomorrow's Church are at best for me and my generation. Realistically, probably more for a small demograph of my generation. My dreams are based on areas of the Church that have been found wanting in my life and the friendships that have pointed those areas out. But those dreams will drive me to answers that are not universal for all people and all churches - but for me and a community that agrees.

So I must continue to wrestle with Karli's challenge (earlier post) and not come up with another title for a movement, or another denomination or start going to a another church or plant another new chruch - maybe I just need to be the change and follow the Way.

I don't have universal answers, strategies or leadership - which is exactly why I follow the Way, the One. And that is why I'll never author a book on the 'Ways of Kevin', because at best, my life will be a poor representation of the One Way. So the best thing I can do as a leader is follow the One Way with all of my heart, mind and soul. And secondly, in pursuit of showing the Way to my neighbor, I can not afford to get caught up in the titles and terms - just the pursuit of the Way lived out!

LeaderMan vs. ServantLeader

I stole this from Ann Jackson, she stole this off brant hansen’s blog.

———–

LeaderMan: Wants a platform on which to say something

Servant Leader: Has something to say

———–

LeaderMan: You almost feel you know his family, because he’s your Leader

Servant Leader: You allow him to influence you, because you know his family

———–

LeaderMan: Wants you to know he’s a Leader

Servant Leader: You’re not sure he knows he’s a leader

———–

LeaderMan: Loves the idea of the Gospel, and the idea of The Church

Servant Leader: Loves God and the actual individual people God brings across his path

———–

LeaderMan: A great speaker, but self-described as, “Not really a people person.”

Servant Leader: Makes himself a people person

———–

LeaderMan: Helps you find where God is leading you in his organization

Servant Leader: Helps you find where God is leading you

———–

LeaderMan: Gets together with you to talk about his vision

Servant Leader: Just gets together with you

———–

LeaderMan: Resents “sheep stealing”

Servant Leader: Doesn’t get the “stealing” part, since he doesn’t own anyone to begin with

———–

LeaderMan: Wants the right people on the bus

Servant Leader: Wants to find the right bus for you, and sit next to you on it

———–

LeaderMan: Shows you a flow chart

Servant Leader: Shows you his whole heart

———–

LeaderMan: A visionary who knows what the future looks like

Servant Leader: Knows what your kitchen looks like

———–

LeaderMan: If it’s worth doing, it worth doing with excellence

Servant Leader: Not exactly sure how to even calculate “worth doing”

———–

LeaderMan: Talks about confronting one another in love

Servant Leader: Actually confronts you in love

———–

LeaderMan: Impressed by success and successful people

Servant Leader: Impressed by faithfulness

———–

LeaderMan: Invests time in you, if you are “key people”

Servant Leader: Wastes time with you

———–

LeaderMan: Reveals sins of his past

Servant Leader: Reveals sins of his present

———-

LeaderMan: Gives you things to do

Servant Leader: Gives you freedom

———–

LeaderMan: Leads because of official position

Servant Leader: Leads in spite of position

———–

LeaderMan: Deep down, threatened by other Leaders

Servant Leader: Has nothing to lose

Our Space in History...

So some scholars are calling our era, our gift of time on a earth 'The Great Emergence.'

What that means is yet to be fully known, but we all seem to know that change is not only needed, but coming. I've stumbled on some great articles about this lately (here and here) and wanted to share this quote.

"The duty, challenge, joy, and excitement of the church and for the Christians who compose her, then, is in discovering what it means to believe that the kingdom of God is within one and in understanding that one is thereby a pulsating, vibrating bit in a much grander network. Neither established human authority nor scholarly or priestly discernment alone can lead, because, being human, both are trapped in space/time and thereby prevented from a perspective of total understanding. Rather, it is how the message runs back and forth, over and about, the hubs of the network that it is tried and amended and tempered into wisdom and right action for effecting God’s will." - Phyllis Tickle

Thoughts?

Missional [Part 3]

I'm re-posting one of Mark Batterson's recent post, as it adds to the Missio conversation. It adds to the 3 phases in Missional [Part 2].

------------------------------------------------

Imitation is Suicide

I just read the latest issue of Outreach magazine and the feature was an interview with Erwin McManus, pastor of Mosaic in LA. He said something that was so profound. Really made me think. "I think a lot of pastors have a dream that matches the life of the pastor who is the living the dream they want." Man, that stopped me in my tracks.

I think there is a such a temptation to copy when it comes to ministry. I wrestle with it as much as anyone else. I think we need models. I've got my fair share, including Erwin McManus. But I remember reading something Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote in Self-Reliance: "There is a time in every man's education that he arrives at the conviction that imitation is suicide. He must take himself for better or for worse."

I think there are two simple principles that ought to guide us:

1) Keep Learning.

2) Be Yourself.

At some point, most of us stop learning and start copying. It's so much easier. We stop living out of right-brain imagination and start living out of left-brain memory. And that is when we stop creating the future and start repeating the past.

Just a simple reminder. There never has been and never will be anyone like you. And that isn't a testament to you. It's a testament to the God who created you.

-----------------------------------------------

Your thoughts...

Missional [Part 2]

Hugh Halter, one of the founders of Missio, gave these three phases to missional life and church/community formation:

3 phases are...

1. Cultural engagement - The church planter must think like a missionary and find ways to engage the community in means that are fitting for the context.

2. Community Formation - Once the planter has found the means to serve and love in their context they will begin to function in ways that bring people together to form communities.

3. Structuring congregational forms that stay missional - These missional communities started by the church planter are then structured in a way so that they continue to stay on mission.

Taken from a Dave Ferguson post - here.

I like this as a beginning point for thinking through missional/third place ideas for the church.

Critiques? Thoughts?

Missional [Part 1]

I found this organization called Missio. They have been having the same kind of conversations and have been forming some philosophy around missional churches.

Here's what their site says their philosophy is:

"We don’t believe that missional ministry is tied to a specific form of church. You can be into 'mega church, house church, multi-site church, emerging, traditional, or cell model.' It doesn’t matter. They can all be ineffective and sterile, or they can be faithful and fruitful in engaging the world with a tangible presence of the Gospel.

The difference lies not in our programming, presentation, or how we choose to gather. The difference is how we 'go' and the habits of those who go with us.

Being 'missional' means being incarnational instead of attractional. We are not trying to attract non-believers, but instead engage them. If we are incarnational, then people will follow us and the Church will grow. "

Your thoughts.

Kill the Clergy! [Part 1]

Okay, not actually kill the clergy - let's just kill the terminology. Tomorrow’s Church has to rid itself of the separation between clergy and laity.

When the Early Church became an institution, lines began being drawn between the trained and the untrained. Separation of those who can perform the religious duties of the new religion of the Roman Empire under Constantine and those who could not. The reformation restored some of the faulty practical theology that transpired, namely putting the scripture of the bible into the common language. However, we are due for a 2nd Reformation.

As I’ve heard it said before, the 1st Reformation took the scripture out of the clergies hands and placed it in the hands of everyone – a 2nd Reformation is needed that takes the ministry out of the clergies hands and calls everyone into their God-given roles.

Frank Viola said it this way, “What the Reformers failed to do was to recover the corporate dimension of the believing priesthood. They restored the doctrine of the believing priesthood soteriologically—i.e., as it related to salvation. But they failed to restore it ecclesiological—i.e., as it related to the church.”

I believe that the separation only feeds the weak, consumerist Christianity we have throughout America today. People come to a ‘service,’ are seated as if it were a show, lead in worship by professional musicians like a concert and taught by a trained speaker – there is a lot of entertainment built into Sunday gatherings. 90% of Christians only attend a church related event on Sundays, according to a survey I made up for this post. Seriously though, most people only go to Church once a week, which builds this false separation of Church, work, family, hobbies, etc – instead of it being a Christian faith woven through out our weekly activities in the lives we live.

If all followers of Jesus are his ‘priesthood’ we should seek to define it better. And not just define it better, but begin bringing it to be. We give a lot of lip service to the topic, but have failed to realize it. This is why Jesus died for us – not for a heaven ticket – but to restore our connection with God. That all followers would have a connection with the living God and a life radically affected by that reality. You know - all that 'the Kingdom of God is at hand' stuff.

How would it look?