ViewPoint on mission

Take a listen to the August 28th installment of ViewPoint (Church of God radio program). They are beginning a series that will review and recommend noteworthy books. On this broadcast they discuss The Radical Reformission by Mark Driscoll (Mars Hill Church, Seattle). Some good thoughts on mission, and especially encouraging to hear this being discussed more within our own movement.

 

(Don't forget that you can subscribe to the ViewPoint RSS feed)

How do we measure success?

Ronald Green, Pastor of Gordon Church of God (Gordon, Nebraska), has a blog devoted primarily to manuscripts and videos of his sermons. What caught my attention is the video of  Ronald Duncan, General Director of Church of God Ministries, who preached in Gordon on July 24th. I was especially curious to see and hear our North American leader share in a local congregation (as he has never visited my church!).

 

While I have always found Dr. Duncan to be a solid and steady individual, I was somewhat frustrated by some of his introductory comments leading up to the sermon. Bringing greetings to the congregation, he gave a brief report of what is happening in the Church of God, and was quick to express that some of our congregations are doing very well. That's good news. But, it was the measuring stick that he used that concerns me. Urging the Gordon attendees to guess, he asked, "What is the largest size church that we have in the Church of God today?" (ANSWER: Crossings Community Church in Oklahoma City with around 4500 in Sunday attendance), and then went on to proudly state that we have more large (i.e. over 2000) Church of God congregations in the U.S.  than ever before. Interestingly, the entire population of Gordon is below 2000, so I am sure they were somewhat bewildered by the entire exercise.

 

To be fair, Dr. Duncan did quickly add that "we have many small churches that are doing a wonderful job". But, the emphasis that Sunday morning reinforced the notion that success is measured by size.

 

I don't want to be too hard on Ron, as I am convinced that his ultimate definition of success extends beyond size, and that he has a deep appreciation for congregations of all sizes. My real concern, however, is that his comments are a telling reflection of what most people in the Church of God really think when trying to measure church success: "Bigger is better".

 

Certainly, numerical growth is ONE way to assess church success. And, I do celebrate our sister congregations who have been effective at touching and gathering large numbers of people. But, in the quest for more heads to count on a Sunday morning, we can be misled into believing that  Large Church = Mission. This is not always the case. Some small churches may be far more active in true mission.

 

It is a demonstrated fact that most of what appears to be "church growth" in North America is simply transfer growth, or the attraction of people from other churches. Very few, the "mega" churches included, are truly engaging and impacting the secular culture around them.

 

I encourage all of us, Dr. Duncan as well, to re-examine our ideas of church successs. Yes, let's celebrate where God is work, but may we find ways to highlight mission, not just warm bodies in pews.

 

Modern thinking

Recently on CHOGTalk (a Yahoo! discussion group) I posted a message in response to a debate that was developing over the creation-evolution debate, mainly in response to the recent movement to include "Intelligent Design" ideas in public school curriculum.

While I am convinced that we have much bigger items to discuss, underlying this debate are some deeper issues that we must come to terms with.

Here's a slightly modified form of my original message:

I am astounded at the current "intelligent design" debate because the advocates of this position fail to see that they themselves have been duped into a modernistic worldview, and are trying to read Scripture from those lenses. To be blunt, conservatives who insist on reading the Bible with strict literalness are in bed (albeit in a strained relationship) with the "liberals" they so are so quick to attack. Obviously they each have different presuppositions, but when push comes to shove they both approach these issues from the modernistic, rational perspective that is more a product of the Enlightenment than the milieu of Scripture.

I am not a "liberal", as liberalism has proven its emptiness. But, I also consider myself less and less part of "conservative" Christianity, which also blindly taking its cues from culture instead of faith (despite what they may claim). The tragedy for conservatives is that they are unaware of their sell-out to modernism. And, of course, we in the Church of God have increasingly gone lock-step down this path of intellectual and spiritual demise.

It's time we abandoned these polarizing categories since they have become so emotionally charged and bereft of meaning. If we are serious about following Christ, we all must repent of our worship of modernism (or any other intellectual trend), and that includes our modernistic reading of Scripture. Only then will we allow the Spirit to reveal truth and work among us.

Busy with Mission

I haven't posted for a couple of weeks, as life has been busy. As I mentioned in my last post, my church has been working through what it means to be on mission. We've had some interesting discussions in the intervening time, and have decided to make some major changes in how we "do church". As our new direction folds, I plan to share with you some of the things that we will be doing, and telling you what works (and what doesn't). And, please continue to share your stories!

Mission in Hanford

Since we've been discussing the movement of the Church towards mission, let me share some personal experiences from my own pastoral ministry over the past few days.

Our congregation (Central Community Church in Hanford, CA) has been working through this whole missional thing for several months now. This is an exciting church to be part of, as we have gone through some radical changes in the last three years, transitioning from a fairly staid Church of God congregation to one that it is now reaching unchurched people. But, we still struggle to transform our dominant paradigms. Yet, our church leadership is open and committed to continuing in the process of re-focusing the church even further.

But, we're starting to get it. For example, last week during one of our cell group gatherings a woman, who works at a restaurant, was telling us how she frequently comes home with lots of leftovers and doesn't know what to do with them as she has more than she and her husband could ever eat. She's been doing the obvious things, like eating some, freezing some, and giving some to family and friends. But, what came next was exciting for me, the group, and even her. The suggestion offered to her was: Why not take some of it across the street from where she lives to a housing complex and simply knock on some doors and introduce herself as a neighbor and offer some food? This was a radical idea for her, since she has lived in this house for many years but has never met anyone across the street from her. But, suddenly she saw that this could be a way for her to make some connections with people outside the church. It opened up a paradigm shift to her, and to others in attendance.

To further challenge us toward mission, Sunday evening we showed Reggie McNeal's NAC sermon. It was very well received, and certainly provoked a number to look at the church 's mission differently than before. We are following up with a congregational discussion this coming Sunday to further lead our church towards mission.

I know that my experiences over the past few days are just a very small snippet of what God is doing elsewhere. I'd love to hear how you are coming to terms with mission in your church. Please pass along your own stories by leaving a Comment, or by posting on your own blog and leaving a link in my Comments.

Hit the Bullseye

In case you are not on the e-mail list of "Multiplication Moments" from the Church Multiplication department at Church of God Ministries I will paste portions of the latest edition below, since I can't find a link for it on www.chog.org.

These are quotes from Paul Borden, author of Hit the Bullseye: How Denominations Can Aim the Congregation at the Mission Field, who spoke at a Ohio Ministries meeting on July 7th.

Some good points to contribute to our discussion on mission:

“Churches are not to be places of refuge. They are to be a place where lost people come to find Christ.”

“Not all growing congregations are healthy ones. However, all healthy congregations are growing.”

“If congregations are not growing, they are not healthy. Not only that, they are being disobedient to the call of Christ.”

“Do we run the state and national organizations to continue the institutions or to fulfill the mission?”

“The local congregation should be at the top of the pyramid. Of all church organizations, the congregation is the only one ordained by God. All congregations have the same mission, to fulfill the Great Commission, and God expects the local congregation to do whatever it takes to achieve the mission.”

Incarnational vs. Attractional Mission

Here's another thought provoking post from the Australian blog, "Backyard Missionary", that provides additional food-for-thought to us in the Church of God who are concerned about a return to mission.

The title says it all.

LINK

Strege and Babylon

Fitting to my recent post on "Examining our Unity" is consideration of the "Trumpet times" column by Merle Strege in the June/July 2005 edition of OneVoice! magazine (page 25): "Babylon: More than a place".

As the Church of God historian, Strege discusses "Babylon" and "Babel" - key terms used in the early years of our movement. These biblical images were understood by our pioneers to represent the falsity and confusion surrounding denominationalism, the perceived major threat to Christian unity.

Strege contends that the use of "Babylon" especially "has waned among many Church of God congregations". He believes that this symbol needs to be "reexamined" since denominationalism may not be as big an issue today, others are also taking up the cause of Christian unity, and "equating Babylon with denominations may never have been a truly valid interpretation". Instead, Strege proposes that we adopt a much broader understanding of Babylon, namely the seduction of the dominant culture.

I really can't disagree with Strege's intrepretation of Isaiah 48:20, the source of our anti-Babylon teaching. It certainly fits better with the original context in which Isaiah was written.

For me, the question that erupts from this discussion is whether our Christian unity emphasis may be tainted by other problems?

Certainly, the teaching of unity in Christ is a central New Testament theme that hasn't been lived out very well in Christendom. But, could it be that our take on unity ended up as a negative stance, that is, largely anti-denominational instead of presenting a positive vision of what the church should and could be like? Has this negative, confrontational orientation contributed to our own struggles with unity, exhibited in many of the internal issues we face? And, most important, can this help explain why we have been weak at engaging our culture in mission?

Questions worth pondering.

Mission: Chicken or egg?

Briefly going back to the topic of Mission (before continuing on the Unity issue):

I came across a reference on Backyard Missionary to something said by Gordon Cosby (Pastor of Church of the Saviour in Washinton, D.C.). Cosby said that

"in all his years of service he has never (and he emphasized ‘never’) seen a group go from community to mission. Rather, he said one should organize around mission and community will follow."

A very significant observation. Many times we make the false assumption that if we build and nurture our congregation, mission will be a natural outcome. The reality is, however, that this rarely happens.

A reminder that mission must be at our center, just as it was for Jesus.

Examining Our Unity

Some recent comments following my "Level the Dome" post have focused on the issue of unity.

Andy asked the question: "Could someone please share with me some concrete examples of Unity in this movement?" The implication is that we are not practicing what we preach when it comes to unity.

I know of many examples within the Church of God where unity is being lived out, but we must honestly acknowledge that there are also serious problems. The buzz word that we have heard coming out of Anderson, especially in the last six years, is "reconciliation". This is a blatant admission that not all is well among us. The most obvious example are the walls that have separated our African-American brothers and sisters from the rest of the movement.

A case can be made that we have a had less than stellar track record at living this, one of our distinguishing doctrines. In fact, it is almost embarassing to admit our struggles in this area. And, of course, before we can "reach our hands in fellowship to every blood-washed one" outside of our movement, we must address our internal unity. There is work to be done to build stronger bridges with not only our large African-American constituency, but also with Hispanics among us, the German churches in North America that were alienated during and following World War II, and churches on the geographic fringes outside of the Midwest.

The fact is, there is much more diversity in the Church of God than we are often willing to admit. Apart from some of the obvious racial and cultural differences, there is also a certain degree of theological latitude in our movement. Unfortunately, however, we have not tolerated internal or external theological differences very well. We have often bought into rigid doctrinal purity at the expense of the unity of fellowship we desire, but find elusive. In reality, we call people to unity in Christ, but only if they come on our doctrinal terms.

For a movement with roots in Wesleyan-holiness it is tragic that we have veered from our orthopraxic orientation, and towards a Calivinist-evangelical fixation on orthodoxy.

I don't want to be too hard on us, but we must face this issue of unity head on. We don't need more doctrinal ink spent describing the unity of the church. It's time we started to live it both inside and outside our circles.

Blogrolls

You may have noticed that on my blog site main page I have been keeping a "blogroll" of Church of God bloggers. As far as I know this is the only attempt to create a comprehensive list of Church of God blogs.

Take time to look through some of these blogs, and subscribe to ones that might interest you. In addition, please notify me of any other Church of God blogs so that this list can grow. I know there are others out there (because I've heard about them), although some are not yet in RSS or Atom format.

In addition, I now have a "Church of God podcasts" blogroll. Yes, we have our first congregation making their sermons available in a feed format: Cornwall Church in Bellingham, WA (Pastor Bob Marvel)!

The advantage of podcasting is that besides the convenience of being notified through a feed, with the use of special software you can easily download these audio files onto a personal listening device (i.e. iPod or MP3 player). Again, please notify me of other Church of God podcasts you are aware of.

Level the dome

I don't want to completely leave the discussion concerning our mission, but I briefly want to take a slight diversion and comment on the Warner Auditorium dilemma facing the Church of God. This might seem to be trivial issue, but for me the decision we make on this will have lasting influence on our movement.

In short, I am convinced that it is time to level the dome.

At the General Assembly in Anderson this year we were informed of the options that were being considered to deal with the problem of asbestos insulation in Warner Auditorium. If I have my facts straight, the least expensive option is to have the asbestos removed and to level the structure. All for around $800,000. To renovate, expand or even rebuild would mean even more money, heading into the millions of dollars.

Just from the perspective of stewardship I cannot see spending any more money than necessary on a building that we use only one week a year (and rent out for only a handful of other events). The new Kardatzke Wellness Center served well as a replacement location this year for the North American Convention, especially considering the last minute preparations required to make everything work. Why do we need a new shrine?

Certainly "Anderson Campmeeting" has been an important occasion for drawing the Church of God together. When the dome was built in 1962 it may have seemed appropriate to maintain the centrality of Anderson for this event and other aspects of our movement. But, today is a different story.

If we are going to take our mission seriously in this new century it is important that we move away from a Anderson-centric model, and towards a church movement focused on our core, the local congregations. Moving the North American Convention around the continent would be a tremendous symbolic act affirming that we are not just a Midwestern United States denomination, but a continent-wide fellowship that is united in mission but diverse in culture and approach.

Certainly the large power and population concentration around central Indiana will resist any change from status quo. Having always lived on the geographic fringes of our movement, I see first hand how disconnected people distant from Anderson are to the rest of the Church of God.

As I and others have already indicated, this year's North American Convention offers hope that a new missional wind is blowing across our movement. In that spirit, let's level the dome and allow ourselves to see new ways of functioning together for the Kingdom.

Mission and leadership

Some excellent comments were left on my post "Mission as Program?".

Randy made the point that "It may have to start with a program for some to see that it isn't just a program" and that the role of leaders in this case is to "lead in such a way that we can help the mindset to change in our people".

mojclessme (Ken) carefully questioned my bottom-up versus top-down comparison, stating that "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".

Points well taken.

Leadership is often a missing element. North American church culture is predominately devoid of active mission, and this will not change without the proactive leadership of women and men who can point in new directions and model it through their own examples.

I do not want to create a false dichotomy between top-down and bottom-up. It's not really an either/or situation. Leadership should create the vision and set the pace. If it is good leadership people will be challenged, mobilized and equipped to enter mission, and ultimately take the initiative to exercise their gifts. In this way, mission will begin to erupt from the grassroots.

Unfortunately, however, most leadership development (even within the Church of God) is not mission oriented. That's a whole new discussion ...

When?

One further reflection on Andy's question: "WHEN are we going to see the 'the church' do any of this?". Here's a quote quoted on a blog entitled Backyard Missionaries:

“Jesus said he wanted us to be in the world but not of it. The problem is that we have succeeded in neither. We are not in the world, but instead find ourselves in a church subculture removed from it. And inside that subculture we have become worldly.”

Jim Thwaites - Renegotiating the Church Contract P.96

Something needs to change first!

Mission as program?

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?

Mission continued ...

The North American Convention has certainly got a number of people talking about our mission.

The question, of course, is: HOW do we move to a mission mindset and mission action?

Let me offer a few additional places to continue exploring this:

1. The latest issue of Leadership Network "Advance", an e-mail newsletter (why don't they have an RSS feed yet?!) featured a brief, but interesting article that outlined a model for understanding and measuring an externally focused church.

2. Ken Oldham shared an example of what his church is beginning to do in a post entitled "out we go".

3. I encourage you to follow "from the Bradlands", the blog of Brad Kunkel a Church of God pastor here in Central California. Without knowing Brad, his very transparent weekly journal might not make much sense, but here's some background. Brad was called to take over leadership of a newly planted church in our region, but after many changes and searching they decided to move away from the "typical" church planting model (which wasn't really working anyways) and instead take more of a missional approach to ministry. God led them to a very difficult town, Del Ray, where they are actively working to engage directly with the many people in need of God's love. Brad has a tremendous heart for ministry, and I believe there is much we can learn from following and praying for his work.

Death of the Church

I got your attention, didn't I?

Before you move on to something else, be assured that this is NOT a negative rant.

Death of the Church is an exceptional book that I read on my vacation. The title has tremendous shock effect, probably scaring many away from reading it (explaining why it never became a best-seller). Yet, this book is a must-read for anyone wanting to understand the cultural shifts happening around us, and the needed response by the church. It's not Church of God specific, but it applies to us as much as anyone. It sure has inspired me!

The subtitle of the book provides a better clue as to where the author, Mike Regele, is headed: "The Church has a choice: to die as a result of its resistance to change or to die in order to live." Regele is optimistic about the future of the church, but not today's institutions. By laying out a well-documented picture of life in America, he points out how the institutional church is facing death. The question is, however, will it die by design or default. Ultimately, "the death that the institutional church is facing is like the death each of us must face each day in our pilgrimage. Christ calls us to put to death those things in our lives that inhibit us from becoming all God intends for us to be." (p. 239)

Certainly there are many books out there describing the need for change in the church. What sets this book apart is its rich tapestry of historical and social analysis.

The book has two minor weaknesses. First, it is already dated (1995) and doesn't reflect some recent forces shaping our culture, but you will discover that not to be a hindrance. Second, the book just briefly touches on the "how to" aspect that many desire. Nevertheless, Regele gives us enough to ponder and leaves us wanting to begin the journey of discovering the solutions for ourselves.

LINK

More on Mission

Ken Oldham wins the prize for being the first person mentioned twice in one week on my blog!

mojclessme (Ken) commented on my "Reflections on the NAC" post of a few days ago (read it here: http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7271575&postID=112077286151264174), and I couldn't resist responding. What got my attention is:

"the missional choice should be central to our value system. the other issues of the church of God, Holiness, Unity, or any of the other 5 vision statements should also stem from the original purpose of the church commissioned by Christ and empowerd by the Spirit: Reach the Lost."

I wonder if mission is truly central to our value system. As I stated, I am hopeful that we are becoming more missional, but I am not convinced that this is at the core of who we are as a movement.

Our DNA was constructed as a "reformation" movement. Our genesis was in calling Christians out of denominations and into holiness with the goal of uniting them as God's true church. "Reaching the Lost" was certainly acknowledged, taught and even practiced, but as a secondary concern. Over the years we have struggled to resolve the tension of our original passion and the Great Commission.

This must change.

We must make the missional choice. But, it will mean turning our eyes away from ourselves and onto God, whose eyes are on the world in which we live.

Once we make this choice we can move beyond our doctrinal and organizational fixations. Our distinctives and vision can then be re-interpreted from a new starting point as we strive to engage our society with the Good News.

Baker parable

Here's an excellent parable, also inspired by this year's NAC. From the blog of Ken Oldham: http://servelovepray.blogspot.com/2005/07/baker-parable.html

Reflections on the NAC

A good place to start discussing Church of God issues is to reflect on the North American Convention in Anderson which ended last week. Having always lived on the geographic fringes of this movement, I don't make it to Anderson every year, and even this year I was unable to take in the entire convention due to some family obligations. Nevertheless, I dohave some observations to share.

This year's event exceeded my expectations. To be honest, most years I make the pilgrimage to Indiana with some reluctance. I believe we are far too Anderson-centric, and that the Church of God tends to be overly influenced by Midwestern Evangelical culture, and therefore has had a difficult time expressing itself in other contexts. Maybe I noticed it more because of being absent for a few years, but I detected some significant changes in 2005. Sure, not meeting in the "dome" shook things up (and I will get back to that topic in the next few days), but I sensed shifts in attitudes and perspectives that left me feeling hopeful for our future.

Apart from the meaningful interactions I had with friends and past acquaintances, I was especially challenged by Reggie McNeal's message on Monday evening which complemented the conferences he led for pastors earlier in the day. (Watch it online if you missed it at www.chog.org - NOTE: a higher quality video and audio version will be available next week). Entitled "Mission or Refuge: Your Choice", McNeal delivered a powerful call for the missional church, couched in language readily understood by those in attendance. I believe that he was serious when he said that as a reformation movement the Church of God can have a major impact on the larger North American church. But, we have a choice to make. Will we retreat into refuge, or will we recover our mission? McNeal went on to demonstrate that our mission is not centered in the church, but takes place when we recog nize where God is already at work in the world. As he reminded us during his conference, being missional is a matter of being turned to culture versus being stuck in maintenance mode.

Making the missional choice is not something that can be mandated from Anderson to the congregations. But, based on the conversations I am engaged in, I sense a growing awareness of and commitment toward being an incarnational church within this complex, post-Christian society in which we find ourselves. Many are making the missional choice, and our movement and world can be deeply impacted by it.