Fairy Tale Missionality
We all know the story of the girl who kisses the frog and turns him into a handsome prince, right? Pure fantasy. But, it's something many of us try to believe in anyway.
In our ministry our vision is based in two teachings of Jesus.
1. That the greatest command is actually two commands from the Old Testament Law: First, to love Yahweh your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and, second, to love your neighbor as yourself. We believe that all of the law and the prophets rest on those two commands.
2. That on the day Jesus comes in His glory He will separate the people of the world as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats and He will reward or punish all people based on how thoroughly their lives bore the fruit of His lordship. He will welcome those who fed the hungry, hydrated the thirsty, welcomed the stranger, gave clothes to the clothing-impaired, cared for the sick and visited the imprisoned among 'the least of these brothers of mine.'
Sharing that twofold vision leads to the formation of a faith community engaged in an exciting spiritual walk.
We have discovered, though, that practicing this vision isn't magical. In just the last year, we have touched many hundreds of lives. None of them have turned out to be frogs-turned-into-princes by the kiss of the love of Jesus.
Most of the people we have encountered fall into four categories:
1. The cynical who will take as much as you are willing to give, bleed you as dry as they can and then move on to the next do-gooders they can find. There are very few of these people but, if you minister as we do, they will find you.
2. People who are genuinely thankful that you have met a need in their lives but who don't care why you do it. They will smile and thank you and hug you and even thank God for you, but they have no interest in living differently than they are. They will have no more interest in following Jesus after you bless them in His Name than they did before. They want to live the way they are living. They believe in it as much as you believe Jesus is Lord. In my opinion, this is, by far, the largest category of people we meet.
3. People who are genuinely impressed by what you do and by the fact that you do it because you follow Jesus. They, are at least, willing to acknowledge that there is something about following Jesus that produces acts of love. However, they are not willing or able to repent of the life they live and make the radical commitment that becoming a disciple of Jesus requires. (Lk 14:26-27) This is probably the second largest category of people we encounter.
4. People who are moved to take at least a tentative step toward following Jesus. However, here's what I see in those people: They are not likely to embrace the Christendom version of Jesus-following which says that discipleship means showing up for Sunday School and a Worship Service and putting your name on a church membership role. They will do radical acts of love. They will even invite strangers into their homes. But, they probably won't groove on the Sunday Morning Rock Concert definition of living for Jesus. They will feed the hungry. They will join your group when YOU feed the hungry but they will not become churchy people in the traditional way. Hence, the way most religious bodies count success, doesn't account for them well.
Two thoughts come to me from the journey we have been on:
1. If you move toward missionality in your ministry, don't be naive. Don't think that if you begin to be externally focused that a little smooch will instantly turn frogs into princes. That probably won't happen.
2. Start working on a New Testament way to measure the sort of results missionality will produce. So far, institutional Christianity does not measure the results that missionality produces.
posted by bill Sloat at 8:33 AM
45 Comments:
In recent opportunities to give and serve others in the community, I have noticed many more toward the earlier examples on your list.
I think the problem is when we're primarily concerned about results (in a business sort of way).
I've been thinking about Paul's farewell address to the Ephesian Elders in Acts 20. He doesn't speak about how many people were converted or became followers of Jesus. He preached the gospel - the whole will of God - and was thus not guilty of the blood of anyone there.
Our objective is not for the results of giving and serving or even evangelism. What our master tells us- commands us - to do, we ought to do.
And much like many of the missions trips we go on, those who are changed are often the ones serving rather than those being served.
Dan,
One of the important emphases of the Mission Leadership Initiative is that we must change the 'metrics,' i.e., we need to begin to measure different things.
I believe that we will never do that until we begin to hide new values deep within our hearts.
My fear is that congregations who don't repent of what they believe in will not become and remain missional because they will be discouraged when being missional fails to add to their Composite Membership figure because they still hold the values of the attractional church. Those values are not biblical.
Early Christians never counted Sunday morning attendance because 'worship service' attendance has nothing to do with obeying the commands of Jesus.
Could it be that it is completely inappropriate for us to measure 'results' at all?
Maybe we should try to account for 'faithfulness' instead. Have we been faithful in loving others, serving, sharing, proclaiming the Lordship of Jesus over us...
Last time I read the Bible, it was God who changed hearts, not us.
How can we possibly be responsible for conversions much less membership etc.? As I mentioned before, Paul didn't even count conversions, only the degree to which he was faithful it sharing the gospel.
Now one could argue that faithful ministry will yield fruit. But not all ministry in all places yields the same fruit of what we expect. Some people aren't fruitful because they're not faithful. Some are faithful but fruit comes slow in hard soil.
Faithfulness ought to be the measure.
It seems to me that as the culture shifts away from God and if we become more serious about discipleship, we might see fewer people becoming disciples, not more.
I tend to think we are supposed to count the fruit. We really do need to know what the fruit is. The Bible is clear that not all the seed will grow, but when it does, look out!
I also to think, myself included, that we want people to appreciate our service and love for Jesus and to join our culture. It may not have been such a big deal 50 to 100 years ago, because there were very few cultures (in America). But today, there are thousands of cultures.
We need to be willing to live with people in their cultures to see them grow and produce fruit. It is not easy.
Dan,
Could it be that it is completely inappropriate for us to measure 'results' at all?
We have taken an oath "as followers of the Lord Jesus Christ" to, among other things, establishing churches on the New Testament plan. So, here's an implication of that oath:
What did the early church measure?
I'm reaching the conclusion that all this metrics stuff has no basis in the Word at all and that it comes from the Age of Science.
I don't believe that the work of the Spirit can be quantified easily and I, personally, can't find a biblical justification for doing it.
Brian,
This notion of 'joining our culture' is one I'm struggling with. This latest MLI book has me tied in knots.
The whole notion of reaching out to communities/cities/cultures is one that I find two places:
1. In the religion of the Old Testament.
2. In the religion of Constantine.
I have been begging my MLI cohort to show me that I am wrong.
On the day that the Son of Man sits on His glorious throne He will separate the people of the world--the PEOPLE of the world--as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will not deal with us as cultures or communities.
I don't see New Testament followers of Jesus engaging cultures or communities. I see them challenging people with the truth of the gospel.
I want to end up where you are but I'm having a lot of trouble getting there.
Can you help me out?
A relevant conversation took place on this blog a few years ago -
Defining (and Defending?) Cultural Relevance
It doesn't directly answer Bill's question, but it does explore the topic further.
Bill - what's the book? Thanks.
I think the 'Christ in culture' conversation is probably one that we ought to have sometime in our body.
The book is, To Transform a City, by Swanson and Williams.
Bill,
Jesus was cross-cultural. He comfortably walked from the temple to Matthew's house to touching a leper to a willingness to go with a Roman soldier to touching and healing Peter's mother-in-law.
The engagement of the culture for me has come with the school system. This summer, our school district asked me to help them develop a backpack food program for the entire district (over 3000 students and over half of those are on free and reduced lunch).
Listening to the administrators, almost with tears in their eyes, tell me how hungry their students are on Monday morning broke my heart.
To engage the need of the schools, I have to be cross-cultural. I cannot be John the Baptist in the schools, and actually Jesus did not emulate John the Baptist.
Metrics? Were starving children fed? It does appear in Matthew 25 that Jesus is counting this number.
What does that do with the gospel? My 9 year old and I were talking about the backpack program, and he said, "We sure do help a lot of people." I said, "Yes. It is because Jesus helped us so much by forgiving our sin and promising us a renewed community." That will always be my answer.
What am I missing?
Brian,
Jesus did, indeed, move from culture to culture. What I don't see Him doing is engaging the world on the level of culture.
No matter where He went or what He did, He engaged people as people. From the beginning, He called individuals to repentance.
I know of no instance of Jesus calling a city to be transformed as a city. I know of no time that He engaged a city as a city other than to weep for Jerusalem and to condemn a few Galilean villages for lack of repentance. But, the text seems to be on the individuals of those villages not on the villages as themselves.
I admire you for the success you've had in engaging the people of your area by taking advantage of the opportunties you've found through the school system. I'm not saying that is wrong. We, too, are concerned about finding hungry people to feed.
I'm beginning to suspect that shifting easily from culture to culture as easily as you do is central to the gift of being an apostle. You certainly have that calling.
As far as metrics are concerned, we are told that Jesus fed 5,000 and, another time, fed 4,000 but Scripture doesn't record the number of people Jesus fed or the number of lepers He cleansed on an ongoing basis.
In fact, John seems to use the feeding of the 5,000 to contrast those 5,000 with the handful of committed people who stayed with Jesus by the end of that chapter.
In Matthew 25, I'm not sure Jesus is measuring quantity. He seems to care, not about counting how many were fed but who was fed, i.e., 'the least of these.'
As I said, this issue makes me uncomfortable. I want to see in Scripture what you see. I still can't.
Bill,
I'm probably not understanding your point.
Culture is a given. You live in a culture. Your church has a culture. Your church's culture isn't the same as our church's culture.
I was reading in Jeremiah this morning where the only thing God was counting was obedience.
To be obedient to God's desire for the poor, you have to cross culture. Do you have to engage culture to cross culture?
What am I missing my friend?
Brian,
I'm struggling with the MLI book we're reading.
In the Forward Reggie says,
"The scorecard can no longer be about how our individual churches are doing. [I get that.] The condition of our communities is the scorecard on how well the church is doing at being the people of God."
I don't see the New Testament basis for that belief, though I'm willing to be convinced.
Swanson and Williams say,
"...we have adopted this mission for our lives: 'To change the world by engaging the church worldwide in the needs and dreams of their communities so as to bring about spiritual and societal transformation.'"
And, I see the Synoptics saying. "Jesus began to preach, 'Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is near.'"
He just didn't engage in the needs and dreams of towns and cities. He went to towns and cities for sure. But, He didn't seem to think that the condition of the cities He went to was the right scorecard. I don't see Paul and Barnabas using that scorecard, either.
I'm not saying that that's not the New Testament scorecard. I am saying that I can't see it.
Do you understand?
One side note about the metaphors we're using - perhaps part of the issue is that the idea of "scorecard" can't be found in scripture as well.
If we're building a NT plan, let's go all the way. How did Jesus talk about success/failure?
Brent,
That's my issue. It seems to me that our inheritance from the Age of Reason and the Age of Science is that quantity matters.
What Jesus seemed to have valued has to do with quality: Do you love Him more than you love your father and mother, your wife and children, your brothers and sisters and even your own life?
How do we count those things?
One example Reggie mentions as a possible metric is, "How many marriages have improved?"
Improved? What do you count to determine that?
Bill,
So...we're dealing with two related, but very different, questions:
1) What role does/should "culture" play in ministry?
2) How does Jesus define his own effectiveness?
Brent,
We are discussing two issues.
The question of how to relate to culture is a question that has engaged Jesus-followers for centuries. I don't think it's one that the CGGC can answer but it is a question that we should ask.
Bill,
You're making me think beyond my pay grade! So even as I write this, I fully acknowledge you may punch obvious holes right through this. I welcome it.
Culture: Jesus engaged culture at so many levels that I've already mentioned. Culture is at an all time high diversity. Culture is a set of walls that make us feel comfortable so we know everybody in those walls thinks and believes like we do.
I don't think Jesus meant to tear down every cultural wall so that means we have to engage the cultures in order to present Jesus as King within every culture. Redemption doesn't change every aspect of our culture, though it does tear down a few walls.
You have to engage the culture to figure out which walls have to come down rather than pulling the whole house down on them. Jesus didn't pull down the whole house on Judaism, or Romans, or Gentiles, or Samaritans, ... But he did speak truth into those cultures.
Scorecard: There is certainly a modern obsession with metrics. Google Six Sigma. And too much emphasis on metrics can suck the soul dry. Look at factory life these days.
But... I believe in the redemption of all things. And I believe that if I'm right and we're following Jesus appropriately, we should see redemption around us.
It is easy to get caught up in the numbers and what exactly to measure, but the goal is to get us moving in the right direction, the direction of the Kingdom of God.
So I don't think it would be inappropriate, for example, to ask churches, "Are you working with a school to meet some of their needs?" School are the center of most communities and needs are made obvious in the schools.
Did Jesus work with any schools? Nope.
Did Jesus start any churches? He laid the foundation, but he didn't launch it. So zero churches started on Jesus' scorecard.
Did Jesus baptize anybody? Nope. Zero.
Did Jesus lead anybody to Christ? Not like we tend to count. Nobody prayed the prayer or repented.
You can't develop a scorecard based solely on what Jesus scorecarded.
The early church had different leadership techniques. They also walked everywhere they went. Scorecarding is to help us ask, "Are we being obedient?"
Brian,
As I squirm my way through this conversation, one I've been having with myself for longer than the time I've been in MLI, I am aware how important it might be for the Body of Christ to have a functioning leadership community in which apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds and teachers are all empowered to live within their callings.
I suspect that the issue of culture is one to be led by apostles. I have an ever-expanding set of questions about it but no answers.
It occurs to me, though, that, in working through the issue of scorecarding, that prophets are required to contribute to the answer. It seems to me that one lesson of our past generation is that shepherds don't assess achievement in carrying out the Great Commission very well.
Having said those things, I believe that the whole APEST community needs prayerfully to engage in these conversations--as a community.
At Faith, we are aggressively living out the 'love commands' promoted by Jesus--all three of them--and we are hyper-focused on Matthew 25. I would say that all of us are aware of our need to live out our obedience as more profitable servants.
The reason I started this thread was to assist people and congregations shifting toward missionality by giving them an idea what to expect and to en-courage them not to be dis-couraged when missionality doesn't produce internally-focused ministry results.
Gang,
I've heard a rumor, I don't know where or how, that an effort is being undertaken in the CGGC to redo the Statistical Report.
Can anyone confirm or deny this rumor?
Bill,
I can confirm that our outreach does not at all fulfill the typical internal goals.
I can also confirm from some recent interactions with people I believe to have prophetic type gifts in our church that prophets seem to be more comfortable within a specific culture. This is a fascinating discovery of APEST interactions!
I can not confirm that the CGGC is reevaluating their statistical sheet. I have not heard this. But it does need to be reevaluated.
Brian,
I can confirm that our outreach does not at all fulfill the typical internal goals.
Have you developed metrics for that?
I can also confirm from some recent interactions with people I believe to have prophetic type gifts in our church that prophets seem to be more comfortable within a specific culture. This is a fascinating discovery of APEST interactions!
It seems to me that a primary function of the prophet is to call God's people to repentance. To ask them to provide leadership in, as Paul said, becoming "all things to all people" is to force on them tasks the Spirit doesn't equip them for.
In the same way, to ask shepherds, equipped to nurture the flock, to lead in shifting through cultures is folly, although we've allowed to try to lead in that way for about 70 years or so in our body. That's been a disaster. It is quenching the Spirit.
Have we developed internal metrics? What I mean is our congregation has not grown numerically.
Prophets. Prophets probably don't like change. It's uncertain and messy. Though this is just scratching the surface of APEST reactions. I hope we find out more about this.
Brian,
Have you tried to understand the signficance of what your ministry does produce and have you sought a way to quantify that?
If so, why not?
I haven't because I'm not sure that metering these things is a biblical thing but I don't pick that up from you.
---------------
I'm interested in your observation that prophets don't like change. In Scripture, prophets were used by the Lord to announce HIS change. He used them as forerunners of change. How do you think this works in your ministry?
Bill,
I was thinking through your comment below in reference to the conversation about culture:
"I am aware how important it might be for the Body of Christ to have a functioning leadership community in which apostles, prophets, evangelists, shepherds and teachers are all empowered to live within their callings..."
The above quote illustrates the value of the Body of Christ as a metaphor for the church. My question is that I wonder if your concerns about the role of culture within the contemporary church underemphasizes the literal body of Christ. God chose a specific time and place for his Son to enter the human conversation. Doesn't the literal embodiment of God give some support to the idea that cultures are significant in one's ministry? There is a particularity about Jesus' literal presence that is strongly implied by the act of Incarnation.
Is it possible to build a NT plan, based upon the life and words of Jesus, while overlooking the unique context that he was living within?
If we are called to build our ministries on the model of Jesus, shouldn't we also be embedded within a particular culture?
Is saying that culture doesn't matter suggesting that Jesus' life would have been as significant if he had been born in another time/place/culture?
I could be misreading your comments, so feel free to help me out.
Brent,
Good questions.
Is it possible to build a NT plan, based upon the life and words of Jesus, while overlooking the unique context that he was living within?
It certainly is. It's my contention that the Western church has been doing that with a white-hot passion for many centuries.
If we are called to build our ministries on the model of Jesus, shouldn't we also be embedded within a particular culture?
It seems to me that Jesus didn't bind Himself to His culture. He came to it as an oursider. The metaphor of the virus which has become so much the fad lately, seems appropriate.
Jesus came to His religious culture telling the Scribes and Pharisees that they worshiped in vain and that they had a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe thier own traditions. He tore the culture's temple practice to pieces literally.
I don't see Jesus being embedded with His culture.
Perhaps I'm too much a child of the sixties, but I see Jesus as a counter-culture figure and I see Jesus-following as being, at its core--counter-culture.
Is saying that culture doesn't matter suggesting that Jesus' life would have been as significant if he had been born in another time/place/culture?
I'm not suggesting that culture doesn't matter. It exists. It can't be ignored. I'm asking how Jesus-followers should address culture.
As a restorationist, I ask the question: What did the early church do? From that foundation, I attempt to determine what those actions were fruit of.
I see no evidence of Jesus or His first disciples attempting to transform their whole culture. I see them, if anything, attempting to call out a remnant from their world.
If you see evidence of an attempt by Jesus or His New Testament followers to embed themselves in their culture, please point it out to me.
I'm trying to make sense of this.
My mind is far from closed.
The early church continue to worship in the temple. They continued to engage in the feeding of widows and orphans which appears to be a part of the Jewish culture. When Paul would go to a new city, he would start in the synagogue.
They were trying to embed in the culture and in fact did for some time.
The problem with being counter-cultural all the time is what do you call your remnant to? What culture do they exist in together?
Brian,
Interestingly, while they did meet in the temple, that same passage also points out that they didn't meet in synagogues. Instead, 'they broke bread in their homes,' literally, 'from house to house.'
To me, this is not a picture of early believers embedding themselves in the culture. It is a picture of them being in the world and not of the world at the same moment.
The widows they cared for were Jesus-following widows, not all widows. Note, in Acts 6:1, the words 'among them.'
As far as Paul's trips to the synagogues are concerned, I see what he did as presenting the gospel for the purpose of creating a 'church'--for calling out a remnant.
I think that it is extremely noteworthy that early Christians used the Greek word, ekklesia, to describe their local communities.
The 'ek' part of that word means 'out.' The gatherings of followers of Jesus were known by their 'outness.' They were 'called-out' communities.
The question is: Out of what?
The problem with being counter-cultural all the time is what do you call your remnant to? What culture do they exist in together?
This is a very important question. It seems to me that there was a synergy in the early church that was both dynamic and organic in balancing the apostolic and the prophetic.
From my point of view, in the CGGC, we are trying to shift from pastor-based thinking to apostle-based thinking. The fault in that is that the church is built on the foundation of both the apostles and the prophets with Christ Jesus as the chief cornerstone.
I know I don't have the answer.
I believe that the answer comes from that dynamic and organic balance. And, I know that that balance is uncomfortable for both apostles and prophets but that it is His way.
What I have learned so far as an apostle is to listen to prophets. I make it a priority to identify them around me.
This is such new ground for me, but I look for people who appear to be able to cut through the fog and get at a simple truth about the situation. Then I go back and ask them about various situations.
This has been very helpful to me, because I think as you said, apostles tend to be more practical (what works).
Embedding might have been too strong a word, but I'll go back to "being cross cultural." The early Christians were able to walk fairly comfortably in other cultures besides their own.
So much of what Jesus said, and what Christianity is based upon, is in contrast with and in response to the Pharisees. In order to be counter-cultural, doesn't one have to be deeply embedded (I won't shy away from that word, at least not yet) in a specific culture?
Jesus bound himself to the culture by responding to the dominant religious voices of his day. Would Christianity be the same if Jesus would have been reacting to Muslim or Hindu religious leaders? In other conversations these questions would be stretching to make a point but in light of this conversation I think the question is relevant.
One other question: Is it necessary for one to have the goal of transforming the culture when seeking to engage the culture?
I recall reading Joseph Fletcher's Situation Ethics in which he makes a valid point that in order to be relative one must be relative in regards to something else. So often when the term "relativism" is used it is assumed that the person called that has no standards whatsoever which, from Fletcher's perspective, is an improper use of the term. I'll admit, many of Fletcher's conclusions are very troublesome. But, on this particular point, I am in agreement.
In order to be an outsider within a culture, you first must recognize that the culture exists and that there is some legitimacy to its structure.
I offer the opposite challenge that you provide some evidence that Jesus was not embedded in and in engagement with his culture.
Brent,
It would be helpful to me if you be more specific about how you define the concept of being embedded in this context.
Clearly, the incarnation has meaning in more ways than I understand it. And, I think that one of the things were discussing here is what it means for Jesus-followers to be incarnational.
Re: One other question: Is it necessary for one to have the goal of transforming the culture when seeking to engage the culture?
I don't think so. But, from what I can tell, a growing number of missional people do.
Gang,
It strikes me as significant that Jesus didn't use the word 'culture.' He may, using His own lexicon, have talked about culture but He didn't use the word as we use it today.
He did speak about the world: "For God so loved the world that He gave his only son..."
According to Matthew, He talked about nations. "...go and make disciples of all nations..."
It may be that, in the world of His day, to talk about nations means what we mean when we talk about culture. Yet, even then, His command is to make disciples. A disciple is an individual not a group of people. Individuals repent and follow Him.
He doesn't talk about transforming nations. He doesn't say, "...go and transform all nations..."
Our command is to make disciples in all nations.
Bill,
First of all, thank you for the interaction. This is the blog at its best.
Now, on to the things we agree upon: we are called to make disciples and this call comes to us while we are living in a specific environment. Am I on safe ground here?
Next, do we agree that this call pushes us to challenge and work with others in our own Jerusalem (Acts 1:8), which can be equated with our immediate surroundings?
Next, if we are still agreeing, the ways in which we engage these groups have to contain some commonalilties in order to be understandable to those listening (Acts 17 in Athens) - am I still okay in thinking we agree?
If so, then where do we disagree? I have a tendancy to be the academic that I am and get caught up in the nuances of "embed" versus some other terminology.
One last question: are you comfortable with my saying that Jesus engaged the people he encountered in ways that made sense to them in the context of their daily patterns of living? [I am intentionally not using the word culture here.]
I know our differences won't disappear just by changing the words we are using, but sometimes I do believe we underestimate the power of our word choices.
Of course, none of this answers how such ministry is measured. Arguing over "culture" is an easy game to play, in part because it's been argued over for centuries (as you pointed out earlier). Out of the two items, perhaps how to measure one's effectiveness is what is more important...
Does anyone here question that we live, serve, and call people to be disciples in the culture we find ourselves?
Paul certainly did approach the culture at Athens differently when there then when in a synagogue etc.
I thought the question that was being tossed around here was regarding our responsibility to make a change in the culture.
We talked about changing the scorecard and that the change in the community around us might be the metric for our effectiveness. Bill mentioned that Reggie McNeal indicated something along these lines.
My thought is that it would be great if culture did change in meaningful ways as a result of the church's presence there. It is difficult to estimate the totality of how the church throughout history has effected culture.
I would expect that as disciples of Jesus serve in their communities collectively and individually, some difference might be made. But as Bill brought out in this original post, many times our faithful service doesn't change people.
At this point, I disagree with the idea that the surrounding culture / community is the scorecard for the church.
Like bill, I just don't see it in the New Testament. Again, I'm not saying that Jesus, Paul, etc weren't aware and responsive to culture. They certainly interacted with it, but is there really evidence that the larger culture being changed was a primary goal in the N.T.
Brent,
Re: ...then where do we disagree? I have a tendancy to be the academic that I am and get caught up in the nuances of "embed" versus some other terminology.
It's not your academic orientation that is the problem. For me the concern is with what the Missional Leadership Initiative is laying down for its current participants to pick up:
In the Forward of the book, TO TRANSFORM A CITY, Reggie says,
The scorecard can no longer be about how our individual churches are doing. The condition of our communities is the scorecard on how well the church is doing at being the people of God.
And, Swanson and Williams say,
...we have adopted this mission for our lives: 'To change the world by engaging the church worldwide in the needs and dreams of their communities so as to bring about spiritual and societal transformation.'
I don't see Reggie's notion that the condition of our communities is how to judge compliance with the Great Commission.
And, I don't see S & W's mission of engaging the needs and dreams of communities as being what Jesus had in mind or what early Jesus-followers attempted.
Jesus said that His Kingdom is not of this world. He didn't say that His followers can transform the world so that it becomes His Kingdom.
I see the notion of community transformation as a new twist on the creation of a theocracy or as the New Constantinianism--an avant garde, really groovy attempt to create a Christian culture.
Having said that, I'm the guy who won't let his Head Usher count Sunday Morning attendance. I'm the guy who will only let the congregation count Matthew 25 ministry achievements, even though that count is not kept permanently.
Dan,
You are correct that the conversation here has become about making a change in the culture.
In the CGGC we have hitched our wagon to Reggie McNeal. And, he is as outspoken a propnent as there is of the notion that being missional means to bring change in culture.
Reggie may be correct.
But, I do think that this conversation we are having here is an important one because it is the conservation that defines HOW we function.
As is so often the case, my biggest problem with the CGGC is that we don't integrate faith and practice well. In the case of this conversation, I don't see us forming a practice that is connected to what we hold to be true.
My guess is that few CGGCers believe that the way to measure success in ministry is to count what happens in the community but, if I didn't raise the question, no one would.
BTW, I have heard that the CGGC is revising its Statistical Report.
Let's wait and see if the metric proposed is consistent with Reggie's assertion that the conditon of our communities is the scorecard for the church. I'm guesssing that we will still count "Worship Service" attendance and that we won't be counting the increase in the number of our school children who pass achievement tests and the decline in divorce rates in our counties.
Who disagrees!
I disagree.
Matthew 25 Sheep and the Goats is a measurement of community interaction.
Faith transforms a person. And a transformed person is concerned about their community.
You can certainly measure whether the people of God are more concerned about themselves or about others, both inside the church and outside.
Whether the culture will change depends on your theology.
Dan H had a good post from Mike Breen, "Why the Missional Movement will fail," and I totally agreed with his premise that you must start with discipleship. I think I've been saying that from the beginning.
At The Crossover (our church), we have four parts to our vision --> Loving God, Loving People, Serving Locally, and Serving Globally. I want to argue (but may fail) that you could start a person in any of these four areas and then grow them into the fullness of all four, which would be a disciple.
Some people you just can't grab at the Loving God level. You grab them at the Serving Locally or Serving Globally level. We all know people who have been "loved" into the Kingdom by Loving People.
I do believe that the fullness of the Gospel is best represented with redemption happening in our communities as well as in our hearts. But you are in grave danger if you have one without the other.
Brian,
This has been a long thread and I'm responding to several people. Could you quote what I said--I assume it's me--that you are responding to regarding Mt 25?
I can't find Dan H's,
Why the Missional Movement will fail.
Sorry, I inadvertently posted that on this blog. At least I haven't done that in awhile, and it didn't contain any cuss words.
Here's the link: http://mikebreen.wordpress.com/2011/09/12/why-the-missional-movement-will-fail/
I found the "Why the missional movement will fail" artcle.
It's right on. It fits the CGGC like a glove.
Basically, it says that missionality will fail unless missional people make disciples to be missional.
In the CGGC, we don't even know how to define the term.
It's impossible for us to be making disciples.
I will go ahead and put that post up - in case anyone wants to discuss it. I too thought it was good. Not thinking that it's 'anti' missional, but 'pro' discipleship. I agree with your take on it, Bill.
Please do post it, Dan.
I believe that one thing we need to repent of is thinking that the people of our congregations are sheep to be tended by a shepherd.
We need to think of them as disciples to be sent into their world to make more disciples. But, we can't send them because we haven't made disciples out of them.
We will never achieve missionality until we equip our people for "works of service." (Eph. 4:12)
Post a Comment
<< Home