I appreciate the growing number of people engaging in this conversation regarding the mission of the church.
I've been reflecting on some examples that you have shared (and that I am hearing elsewhere), and am attempting to correspond them with "The Engagement Matrix" from Leadership Network that I referenced two days ago.
Andy's comment got me thinking further:
"WHEN are we going to see the 'the church' do any of this? ... WHEN will we stop characterizing individuals in mission, [and] start to see the character of the church in mission[?]"
My question pertains to the matter of the role of the church (versus individuals) in mission: How do we mobilize the church into mission without just creating another program?
Unfortunately, the North American church is program-driven. While I admire attempts made to get our congregations outside of the church, how do we avoid the danger of just appearing (both internally and externally) to just deliver another program that is somewhat impersonal?
I am not against "programs" per se, as often some level of organization and coordination is required to make things happen. My real concern is that church programs are often driven from the top-down. You know, the pastor or some committee calls people to join together for some project.
Andy makes a valid rhetorical statement. Mission is not just individuals acting independently in touching the world (although this is certainly part of it). God's people, the church, working together have a much more profound impact.
In my thinking the church's mission must come from the bottom. Instead of an edict from leadership, mission should be driven by those who are directly aware of the needs around them and want to gather their brothers and sisters together to make a difference.
In my congregation we have been trying to initiate mission through our cell groups. One of the key pillars of these groups is regular engagement in mission. They determine the need. They decide who, where and when. We still have a ways to go to break some people out of old mindsets, but it has been exciting to see some of our groups take the challenge. For example, one group volunteered to serve at our local soup kitchen. When it comes from the bottom there tends to be more ownership and passion, more than could ever be generated through a programmatic approach.
What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I think your right Lloyd. But some how we as leaders need to lead in such a way that we can help the mindset to change in our people. [Our Prayer muscles obviously must be flexing. "ya know where the weight room is?"] It may have to start with a program for some to see that it isn't just a program. [Use the irony as a teaching tool.] It's a personal and Body lifestyle, it's culture not event. I'm still working on fleshing this differance out in my own ministry. If we are really leading in a Christ-like-relational-discipling-lifestyle than people will change. God works through that. When God is pouring his heart into your heart, into others, that is life changing! [I am reading "Out of the Question in to the Mystery by Len Sweet, can you tell?]
So Andy am I a true blogger now that I strung 5 words together with hyphens and used a lot of perintheticals? Can that count?
Keep talking Lloyd! thanks man.
i agree and i disagree
mission should not be program. mission is lifestyle. we just recently tried to drive this point home to a group of teens, adults, and college students through an unusual camp/workcamp experience. the results were mixed as some were definitely changed in their surrender to the Lordship of Christ. however, some missed the point. in a concluding survey we asked if any would be willing to repeat the experience and one said, 'no, now that i've learned the lesson of service, i don't need to repeat it." :(
i've been mulling around the whole top-down vs. down-up directed mission comments since they were posted. i wanted to make sure that i didn't respond simply out of what can be a frustrating context for me. i'm not certain that i've arrived at an impartial response, but here's what i'm thinking
i think that the role of leadership is to lead the body into the mission of Christ. further, i don't think the body naturally finds themselves in the mission of Christ without leadership, instead, i think that the natural movement of the body is a self-serving, survival focused, "bubble culture."
so, God sent the prophets and finally His Son to move the people of God out of their program into His mission of love for the world. that's top directing down
now i know that we live post-pentecost and that the Spirit of God has been poured out on all men, but even after pentecost, the early church had signs of reverting (the cry for apostles to wait on tables, the warnings to the seven churches in revelation).
through my young life, i've been in and served at small and big churches, all across the country. i would say that they all have tended to fall into this tendency.
again, i've tried to be objective to the comments without letting current circumstances cloud my opinions. but, again, that may be impossible.
i would appreciate any further comment and discussion on this topic
randy, my comments were directed to Lloyd's original post -- you posted while i was trying to edit my own response
i agree, with Randy, that sometimes a program helps people see that it's more than a program
Ken,I don't think that you were too bitter about your place in life. I know that sometimes or all the time ministry can feel like pulling a train with your teeth. If you were actually to try that I'm sure your mouth would hurt. maybe the rest of your body too. I didn't see any trasferance anywhere there. [ya know taking it out on your family, because something went wrong at church.] I would hope that you could be honest about being frustrated. If this disscussion isn't honest, why have it. "In closing"...thanks for your thoughts.
Post a Comment