Showing posts with label Missional. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Missional. Show all posts
The Shaking of All Things
Thursday, May 7, 2009
This is are really good interview with Mike Breen and Eddie Gibbs - you can watch the rest over on ShapeVine. It has some really good metaphor's for what is happening around us and a lot of thought to chew on afterward. Let me know what you think.
Craig Gross & Being the Church in Sin City
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
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...
Craig Gross on Ministry in Sin City from Url Scaramanga on Vimeo.
Thoughts...
Missional Ministry
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
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?
An Important Distinction
Monday, February 2, 2009
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.
Thoughts...
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...
Defining 'Missional'
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Micheal Frost added this to the conversation on 'what it means to be missional.'
In an interview on The Missional Blog, Frost said
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...
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...
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
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 (2)
Friday, December 5, 2008
I am writing in response to Dan Kimball's article, "Missional Misgivings" (Refer to Kevin's last post). Although he gave us some good things to consider, overall the article discouraged me. The only 'misgiving' I had was toward his idea of "effective" ministry.
Dan begins his post with this statement: "Small, indigenous churches are getting lots of attention, but where's the fruit"?
Right here, Dan. I am the fruit.
I grew up in a fairly large Lutheran congregation. In high school, I went to youth group at a separate mega-church downtown. It was fun, it was flashy, and it was cool. Now, mind you, I am not here to bash mega-churches. I know they minister to large numbers of people, and I praise God for that. However, for someone who attended church her entire life, surrounded by a huge community of Christians, I felt alone. How is it that I attended a church with hundreds of people, yet knew only a handful? I went to church, I heard a great message, I got pumped up by the rock-band worship team, and went back to my normal life at home. I could skip a few Sundays, but I didn't need to worry- no one would notice. I was one of the hundreds. A small fish in a big sea. I was a member of a seemingly large support system, but did not feel supported.
In college, after much searching, I found a 'small, indigenous' church in downtown Spokane. For the first time I understood what Jesus meant when He talked about the Body of Christ. I felt like I was part of a family. People there were warm and inviting. I developed meaningful relationships with people, and was held accountable by my brothers and sisters. Church began to spill over into my week. It was no longer a Sunday event. It was a lifestyle.
This church was not perfect by any means. But it was here that I learned the importance of putting people first. It was here that my faith was most nurtured by the relationships I had.
Numbers? Small, but steady. There was growth, but nothing in comparison to the mega-congregation down the street. However, when we start looking at numbers to define the "success" of a church, we are missing the point.
In his article Dan Kimball, referring to one particular missional church, explains, "After fifteen years it hasn't multiplied. It's a wonderful community that serves the homeless, but there's no evidence of non-Christians beginning to follow Jesus. In the same city several megachurches are seeing conversions and disciples matured."
Alright Dan. Now I am overjoyed that conversions are happening left and right in that city's megachurches. I rejoice for that. However, it seems that he is discounting that missional church's ministry. He says himself that it is a "wonderful community that serves the homeless." It is a community that is taking giant steps in faith to serve the lost and forgotten. I have been to many churches over the years, and most steer clear of homeless ministry. It is uncomfortable, and takes a great deal of boldness to step out of your community and enter theirs. Building relationships with the homeless can be difficult. They do not give their trust easily, and most have been broken and abused in unspeakable ways. It's a whole different kind of ministry. We cannot judge a ministries success based on the number of people "we" convert. Last time I checked it is the Lord that changes the heart, not ourselves. We do not always get the privilege to see the fruit of our labor. Most of the time, hearts are not changed in an instant. The Spirit moves, but in His own time. Perhaps the church Dan speaks of has not "multiplied" in 15 years, but they are continuing in their ministry to the homeless and are being faithful to that call. Who's to say God is not stirring hearts in preparation for a later conversion?
Numbers do not determine effective ministry. Do we give Jesus a hard time for choosing only 12 disciples? Would it not have been much more effective to pour into 100 disciples who could disperse and spread the good news? How dare he assume 12 could do the job. Right?
Now I say this to stress a point. I am not saying that large groups are ineffective either. What I am saying is that Jesus knew how important it was to invest in relationships. He wanted a small group of disciples he could...wait for it...disciple. He wanted to develop a deep and meaningful relationship of trust with these men. He knew that the more he poured into them, the more they could pour into others. Clearly it worked. Open the Gospels and look at the great things these men did in faith.
As Kevin stated in his response, and I think he hits it right on, "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."
I feel like there is so much more to say on this topic, but I want to stop here and ask for your thoughts.
I want to remind you again- my point is not to condemn one church model and praise another.
I do think Dan's article makes for an interesting discussion. I think it's good to be in conversation about such things...
Dan begins his post with this statement: "Small, indigenous churches are getting lots of attention, but where's the fruit"?
Right here, Dan. I am the fruit.
I grew up in a fairly large Lutheran congregation. In high school, I went to youth group at a separate mega-church downtown. It was fun, it was flashy, and it was cool. Now, mind you, I am not here to bash mega-churches. I know they minister to large numbers of people, and I praise God for that. However, for someone who attended church her entire life, surrounded by a huge community of Christians, I felt alone. How is it that I attended a church with hundreds of people, yet knew only a handful? I went to church, I heard a great message, I got pumped up by the rock-band worship team, and went back to my normal life at home. I could skip a few Sundays, but I didn't need to worry- no one would notice. I was one of the hundreds. A small fish in a big sea. I was a member of a seemingly large support system, but did not feel supported.
In college, after much searching, I found a 'small, indigenous' church in downtown Spokane. For the first time I understood what Jesus meant when He talked about the Body of Christ. I felt like I was part of a family. People there were warm and inviting. I developed meaningful relationships with people, and was held accountable by my brothers and sisters. Church began to spill over into my week. It was no longer a Sunday event. It was a lifestyle.
This church was not perfect by any means. But it was here that I learned the importance of putting people first. It was here that my faith was most nurtured by the relationships I had.
Numbers? Small, but steady. There was growth, but nothing in comparison to the mega-congregation down the street. However, when we start looking at numbers to define the "success" of a church, we are missing the point.
In his article Dan Kimball, referring to one particular missional church, explains, "After fifteen years it hasn't multiplied. It's a wonderful community that serves the homeless, but there's no evidence of non-Christians beginning to follow Jesus. In the same city several megachurches are seeing conversions and disciples matured."
Alright Dan. Now I am overjoyed that conversions are happening left and right in that city's megachurches. I rejoice for that. However, it seems that he is discounting that missional church's ministry. He says himself that it is a "wonderful community that serves the homeless." It is a community that is taking giant steps in faith to serve the lost and forgotten. I have been to many churches over the years, and most steer clear of homeless ministry. It is uncomfortable, and takes a great deal of boldness to step out of your community and enter theirs. Building relationships with the homeless can be difficult. They do not give their trust easily, and most have been broken and abused in unspeakable ways. It's a whole different kind of ministry. We cannot judge a ministries success based on the number of people "we" convert. Last time I checked it is the Lord that changes the heart, not ourselves. We do not always get the privilege to see the fruit of our labor. Most of the time, hearts are not changed in an instant. The Spirit moves, but in His own time. Perhaps the church Dan speaks of has not "multiplied" in 15 years, but they are continuing in their ministry to the homeless and are being faithful to that call. Who's to say God is not stirring hearts in preparation for a later conversion?
Numbers do not determine effective ministry. Do we give Jesus a hard time for choosing only 12 disciples? Would it not have been much more effective to pour into 100 disciples who could disperse and spread the good news? How dare he assume 12 could do the job. Right?
Now I say this to stress a point. I am not saying that large groups are ineffective either. What I am saying is that Jesus knew how important it was to invest in relationships. He wanted a small group of disciples he could...wait for it...disciple. He wanted to develop a deep and meaningful relationship of trust with these men. He knew that the more he poured into them, the more they could pour into others. Clearly it worked. Open the Gospels and look at the great things these men did in faith.
As Kevin stated in his response, and I think he hits it right on, "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."
I feel like there is so much more to say on this topic, but I want to stop here and ask for your thoughts.
I want to remind you again- my point is not to condemn one church model and praise another.
I do think Dan's article makes for an interesting discussion. I think it's good to be in conversation about such things...
Missional Fruit
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
