Review: Family Driven Faith

There's a good chance I'm developing a man-crush on Voddie Baucham. I can't beleive I'm saying that, but ... I am. I have been struggling to define a feeling in my soul for (literally) about three years now. I've explored the world of Emerging Church in large part as a result of my soul's questions. I spent close to two years as a Children's Pastor doing a lot of philosophy of ministry thinking. Recently I've been reading in the "Family Ministry" movement. I have all of these to thank for guiding my thinking toward a particular philosophy of ministry. I have Voddie to thank for really beginning to codify my thinking...

There is a growing sense in this country that we've been doing something altogether wrong in the realm of youth ministry. Ask just about any Youth Pastor and they'll tell you the same thing: we do pretty good with teens when they're here, but once they graduate, the majority of them crash and burn spiritually. Countless volumes have been written to address this concern, with theories ranging from the need for more money to the need for more parental involvement to the need for more culturally post-modern methods, etc...

None of these are bad ideas, but they're missing the point.

It has seemed to me for some time that we've completely abandoned our priorities. Within the life of the local church, parents have almost universally given over their fundamental responsibility to others. Harsh words, I know. But what exactly is this fundamental responsibility? I'm persuaded that it's this simple: lead our children to Jesus and teach them to follow Him. So to whom have we relinquished this responsibility? To the local church: its pastors, its youth programs, its Sunday School teachers, etc... It seems very clear that the majority of American Christians now believe "the church" is the primary spiritual agent in the life of their children.

This must not be so.

We - parents, not the church - have a God-given responsibility to train up our children in the understanding of the LORD (Proverbs 22:6). We are commanded to teach our children the truth of God in every situation of life (Deuteronomy 6:7). We are required to exhort them, encourage them, and insist that they live in a way worthy of God (1 Thessalonians 2:11,12). We cannot shrug off this responsibility to "the professionals".

Voddie makes this point with all the wit, clarity, and grace that I'll never have. He calls us to the truly hard, but truly rewarding, work of discipling our kids. He then explains how the local church he's a part of has structured itself to best help (not do it for them) parents in this highest of callings.

This book is a slow read ... I found I could only read and digest it in small pieces. So challenging; so much food for thought. But it's a must read! For my part, I'm challenging myself to do better by my family, and to help my church do better by theirs.

Hatushili

Read More......

Book Review: Family-Integrated Church

I just finished reading J. Mark Fox's Family-Integrated Church today (one of the few benefits of a snow day). Though it wasn't exactly what I expected, I appreciated the book nonetheless...

I confess: I was expecting a discourse on what "family-integrated" means to Mark and the church he pastors. And while he does get into some of that, his book is for the most part a sort of play-by-play of the life of his local church. Along the journey, he shares wisdom from their experiences at starting and growing a family-integrated church. He even briefly discusses how they transitioned in their thinking to a family-integrated approach.

Want to hear first-hand what to do when a heretic dressed in white and proclaiming herself to be the "bride of Christ" shows up on a Sunday morning and starts cat-calling? Seriously. Mark's been there and handled that.

Looking for advice on training males to be men, husbands, and fathers? Mark's got plenty of tidbits for you.

All told, I found the book encouraging. Here is a pastor who knows he doesn't have it all figured out. He's quite sure he's not a finished project, and neither is the church he pastors. I find that honesty refreshing. The landscape of pastor-written books is littered with those that give lip-service to the notion that they're a work in progress; here's one that really seems to believe it.

The larger question remains: what exactly does "family-integrated" church mean? Mark's quick to point out that there is and always should be great diversity in the forms taken by churches that choose to be family-integrated. I like that: different isn't always bad - often it's just different.

Fundamentally, it seems to me that as churches we must commit to leading men to be the leaders in their homes that they're called by God to be. We must do nothing that will implicitly or explicitly usurp their position, even if they're willing to surrender it. We must fight the overly-pragmatic church forms that have dominated the last 75 years or so. We must work to be a family of families.

Now there's a load expression: a family of families! If nothing else I've written has provoked you to think, let me humbly ask you to chew on that expression for while...

Hatushili

Read More......

Survivor Camp

The local church I serve just finished our Survivor Camp today. What is Survivor Camp? Think traditional vacation Bible school on steroids!

Every day we had some corporate worship, a skit relating to the Bible lesson of the day, the corporate Bible lesson, then we moved the kids by age (ish) through a series of 15 minutes stations. One was snack/discussion, where they got some refreshments and a chance to talk about the Bible lesson in a small group format. The other stations were all games/activities, mostly of a somewhat crazy variety!

For example, today was water day, so we had a couple of water balloon slings set up and let the kids launch away at their leaders! We also had an obstacle course that would challenge many adults.

We had some of the more standard games, too. Volleyball, soccer, wheelbarrow races, etc... All told, the week was outstanding. We had a couple hundred kids running around having a grand time, learning a bit of Bible and building relationships with (mostly) teenagers that intentionally showed the love of Christ.

We also involved some civil service to the week. One day we had a demonstration by a K-9 unit. The kids loved the dog (of course!) but it was also nice to see our police forces painted in such a wholesome light (in lieu of so many video games). Another day we had members of the SWAT team come in. It was awesome! They brought an APV, a bunch of equipment and a bomb robot! The robot roamed around and took a team flag from a child ... who nervously cooperated.

I know there are some that would see what we did this week and think (or say), "They weren't direct enough in their presentation of the Gospel". But this week wasn't about a head count of "decisions for the LORD". It was about being a beacon of love and hope in the midst of our community. I shared the Gospel directly during the final day's Bible lesson, and I'm sure the topic came up through small group discussion as well. But more than anything we wanted to plant seeds and build bridges.

We'll be inviting each of these families to come to our next Family Sunday (see this post), which is at the end of this month. Pray that the love and grace we poured into these little lives will continue to honour God in the days to come.

Hatushili

Read More......

Why I hate info-tainment

Info-tainment isn't a real word. It was made up some years ago to describe an all too common methodology. We've been led to believe that people today simply cannot learn things unless the learning process itself is entertaining. So every lesson is wrapped in a game, a video, a song, or something...

Nowhere is the methodology more damaging than in the children's ministry of a local church ...

Talk to a dozen school teachers who are followers of Christ and the odds are excellent that they'll complain about the short attention spans of children these days. They'll talk about the difficulties associated with teaching them anything that takes more than 4 minutes to explain.

Why is this? As usual, I won't pretend to know all the answers, nor to be definitive about this subject. But I believe part of the problem to be the whole notion of info-tainment.

Once upon a time, we had some young school-age children who had a hard time focusing in class. Somewhere along the line, some creative teachers discovered that by "fooling" these children into thinking they were at play they could actually teach them things. But instead of using this methodology sparingly and with careful wisdom, somehow (does anyone know how?) it became increasingly the norm.

Today, it is basically assumed that all children have an attention span the length of an ant and that you simply must entertain them while you educate them if you hope to have any chance of success. To the witness stand I call all of the "educational" video games and cartoons that have flooded the market in the last number of years.

But set aside the image of the public school for a moment and envision instead your local church's Sunday morning children's ministry (CM). If your assembly is like most, regardless of what specific program they use, the fundamental methodology is likely built around info-tainment.

"Kid's church" (or whatever you call it) often becomes nothing more than slightly-controlled chaos filled with loud music, bold videos and plenty of play time.

So what's the problem?, you might ask. Here's why (in a nutshell) I hate info-tainment in CM:

1. Rather than mediate them, it actually encourages short attention spans.
2. It demeans the fundamental ability God gave children to learn.
3. It's lazy and easy.
4. It promotes a consumerist mentality - we're implicitly teaching our children that the life of the local church exists to entertain them.
5. It sets the bar so low that many children (most children, I would argue) are short-changed.
6. It over-simplifies theology and the Christian life, leaving children with one of two logical conclusions: a) God and the Bible are more like fairy tales than reality, or b) the Bible is so simple that in-depth study is not necessary and sound sermons are frivolous.

We - as the local church - are to be about the business of discipling young children, giving them tools necessary to develop into faithful followers of Christ as teens and adults. But far too often we short-circuit this responsibility and do worse than nothing - we actually teach (implicitly and explicitly) what will later need to be un-taught.

Things must change, folks.

Hatushili

Read More......

More Seeker-Speak

In the past, I've spent some time taking issue with some particular Seeker-speak: the language and terminology specific to Seeker-model churches. I've discussed my disdain for "excellence honor God and inspires people" here, and the notion of "relevance" here. Now I'd like to address another - "the church is the hope of the world".

I read a very interesting post over at The Ooze today. [Insert my standard "I don't recommend or often agree with The Ooze" comment here.] ...

If you'd like to read it all (and I suggest you do), here's the link. In a nutshell, the author takes issue with the mantra that (I believe) Bill Hybels first created. While I think she is somewhat missing the point that Hybels is trying to make, I agree with her in general.

Fundamentally, every single church that exists is flawed - they're all composed of (sinful) people! Of course, one could argue that Seeker-folk mean the Church is the hope of the world [which they almost seem to sometimes], but most generally they mean to paint the local church as the care-taker of the Gospel and thereby the hope of the world. But local churches are flawed. They have problems. They have dysfunction. And unless we temper the "hope of the world" mantra with this truth, we're likely setting people up for failure or heartbreak.

The more accurate truth is the Jesus is the hope of the world; His churches are merely those gathered for His service. One of the ways we serve Him is by sharing the Gospel message. But that work is often best accomplished by individuals living and moving as true Christ-followers within whatever context the LORD has placed them. Making the LORD's work fly under the banner of "the church" is perhaps just as silly as forcing it under the banner "Pastor ______" or "Denomination ______". The LORD's work is the LORD's work; our job is to come along side His work in the context He places us.

Church is great. I love the local church. I think the local church accomplishes amazing things. But Jesus - not the church - is the hope of the world.

Hatushili

Read More......

"Multiple Doorways" Theory

I've been thinking about philosophy of ministry a lot lately - I'm seeking a church to serve at vocationally, after all! In the process of answering questions and working through issues, it seems like I regularly end up making the "multiple doorways" speech. Some of you have heard this before (Jered!), but if not I hope you'll find the concept encouraging. As always, I welcome your criticism too.

First, a little history.

There was a time in America when a significant part of the unchurched population would simply wake up some Sunday morning and think, "I need to go to church today". The reasons varied - young children, nostalgia, conviction, family ties, etc... - but the end result was the same. The primary way that local churches welcomed strangers, then, was by making their facilities and people as hospitable as possible...

As a result, churches began posting signs pointing to the restrooms and the nursery. They put out lighted signs in the front lawn of the building to advise people of times of service. They made sure their phone number was in the local phone book anywhere possible. They listed in the local paper's "church section". They trained "greeters" to meet people politely and to hand them a "bulletin" informing these visitors about the nature of the church, the day's activities, etc... They often even tried to make the decor of the building appealing and comfortable.

All of this happened predicated upon a cultural understanding that people would just randomly decide to visit local churches out of the blue. [Please don't remind me here that it was the LORD's prompting - I understand that, but please allow that cultural factors have a role, too.] And they did, often in large numbers.

This "success" prompted strong "visitation" ministries. Sometimes people would randomly stroll through neighborhoods and knock on doors, inviting folk to their church services. Other times people would make sure to visit every visitor to their church services - returning the courtesy, if you will. And all of this worked very well.

Now mind you, there's nothing inherently Biblical about what I've just described, nor is there anything unBiblical about it either. It's just a method that fit a cultural context, all for His glory. If you doubt me, think for a moment about (for example) Martin Luther - do you think he did any of this? Or go back to Ignatius, perhaps - do you suspect he led a vibrant "visitation" ministry? Really, not even the pages of the New Testament indicate anything quite like this set up. But that doesn't make it wrong, bad, or otherwise - it's just a culturally appropriate method to come along side of God's work in a given community. Good stuff, frankly.

But ... (you knew there was one coming, right?) does this same cultural context exist today? In large part, the answer is a resounding "No!". In some areas of the country, and especially in certain demographics, the same cultural context exists and therefore the same methods may well still work, too. But by and large, that cultural context is now gone.

Don't believe me? Tell me, then, what's the first thing you think when two well-dress total strangers knock on your front door? If you're an average American, you either think a) Jehovah's Witnesses, or b) Mormons. Perhaps you think political pollsters or sales people, but regardless you most likely don't think happy thoughts!

Or how about this question: How many unchurched, random visitors have you had at your church meetings in the last six months? Not Christians looking for a new church. Not unchurched people who were invited or are attending because of some special event. People that just woke up and thought, "I need to go to church today" and happened to chose yours. Again, if yours is a normal American church, the answer is "very few".

So what's a church to do? Doom and gloom prevails, right? Wrong.

To put it simply, we need multiple doorways into the life of the church. Where once there was one primary doorway (the front door), there must now be multiple (metaphorical) "doorways" for people to contact, inspect, observe, and (hopefully) become a part of the life of the local church.

Some examples first, then a little theory. If your local community is into a given sport, you should find a way of cooperating - softball team, golf outings, signs for the local football team, whatever. Or how about a MOPS group (Mothers Of Pre Schoolers)? What about music - do you have talented folk in your midst that could play the local scene? Recycling is a great option - maybe use your facilities as a drop off for CFLs. The list goes on and on ...

But I must make an important point about theory and practice here:

I am not suggesting we do these things simply as a method!

I am suggesting that we find whatever passions the LORD has set in our hearts and pursue those with a holy fire. If the LORD gave a certain group of people in a given local church a passion about the environment, we need to encourage them to act upon that passion in the name of Christ. Not in a pushy, holier-than-thou way, but in a way that acknowledges the very Creator of these passions.

So let's run with the environmental example. Say 10 people in your church are passionate about protecting the LORD's creation. We must find a way of allowing them to pursue that passion as a group for the express purpose of His glory. If they want to help clean up highway litter, we encourage them to do so and perhaps find the phone number to call to make it happen. If they want to volunteer at the local recycling center, we stir them on to do that. Ideally, we encourage them to think of themselves as a team, a family, a group committed to these passions. We teach them to soak their problems in prayer, we admonish them toward becoming better disciples even as we watch them do this (in part) by pursuing their passions.

And this glorifies God.

But it does even more. It will almost inevitably attract others. Some not-yet Christians will share this passion and the LORD will use that to bring them into the life of the church. Others will quietly observe this demonstration of divine passion and pass it along to still others. The end result will be that divine encounters will happen, people will come to know the LORD, and He will be even more glorified!

Sure, there will be mockers. Sure, there are inherent risks. But the alternative is unacceptable - continuing to use methods that no longer fit the cultural context will (and has already, frankly) only move us backwards in the task of coming alongside God's work in our communities.

We talk all the time about changing the methods but not the message. This is how I see that taking place. But it's not just a method - it's an honest attempt to live out the passions that the LORD has hard-wired into each of us. In today's increasingly postmodern world, this level of authenticity is perhaps the only culturally acceptable way of proceeding anyway.

...

I'd really love for anyone that can to share how your local church might be living these principles. This is (yet another) opportunity for our resident lurkers to come out and be an active part of the conversation. I'll pick on a few of you by name, to see if we can start a healthy conversation: Jered, Dan, Nick, Ryan - can you hear me?

Hatushili

Read More......

Emerging Seekers?

A common question (for me) came up again the other day, so I thought I might ponder a bit on this post.

Aren't Seeker and Emerging like and oil and water?

Yes. And no. Sort of.

Let's think this through...

The most recent version of this question came as my wife was scouring "pastor wanted" ads over at Church Staffing. She found a self-described Purpose Driven/Seeker church looking to hire someone to pursue their vision of having an Emerging ministry.

Most probably the folks that wrote this ad fall into one of a few possible categories:

A. They don't really know what Emerging means. There's a large category of people out there that seem to think "Emerging" is a new style of worship, or perhaps a new method of organizing church services. They fail to grasp the basic message inherent in the term Emerging - we need to come out of and away from the past, not just tweak it. To many, an "Emerging" or (what's often erroneously considered a synonym) "postmodern" ministry just means lighting a few candles and turning the lights down. That's just simply not going to work, folks.

B. They want to start an Emerging congregation to serve as a hold-over until these congregants "mature" into the "normal" church service. This, as best I understand it, is what happened to Axis at Willow Creek. Click on the Willow Creek link and scroll through their Ministry Quick-Link and this is what you'll see:




In other words, they fully expect that the only people interested in postmodern culture and/or emerging church concepts will be "20-somethings" - a kind of "big kid" youth group. Once you "grow up", as it were, then you'll be a part of "adult" church, I suppose.

Now mind you, I'm not trying to take cheap shots at Willow Creek. They do a great many things very well. Emerging just isn't one of them. Churches that want to start an "emerging ministry" are missing the point, too. In fact, it could safely be said that option B is just a variant of option A!

But I don't want to give the impression that I think Seeker can have nothing to do with Emerging. That would put me in the currently standard mode of "whining Emergent dude" - I don't want that!

I think the two models can co-exist, but not in the same facility and not under an pretense that one is better than the other. The two models are different; one is not inherently better than the other. One happens to be very good at reaching Boomers, the other at reaching the rest of us. But I think they could work hand-in-hand under the right conditions. More on what those conditions might look like later ...

So for now, when I see ads looking to hire a guy to start an "emerging ministry" I'll continue to do as I have: check out their website, read around a bit and verify my suspicions - they know not what they seek.

Hatushili

Read More......

The Unasked Question

Having just gone through a church move, I thought I'd share a bit of wisdom given to me about that process...

I've long held that you should only become a member of the local church that the LORD leads you to. I've also therefore long held the opposite: you don't leave a church that the LORD led you to unless the LORD Himself leads you away.

While I still fundamentally agree with that second notion, I think it needs some careful articulation. What does it mean to say "the LORD led me away"? How does that work? Surely He doesn't audibly tell us. So what does this really mean?

A wise friend of mine once told me about the unasked question in these sorts of situations. We always look at the potential good our staying in a given local church might do. We look at the ministries we're involved in. We look at the things the LORD has been teaching us in that context. But we don't ask one very important question:

How much more might I bring Him glory in a different context?

We focus on the present situation and potential, which is good. But we forget to at least entertain the idea that the LORD might have even greater things in mind somewhere else. I admit this is a sensitive issue - I'm certainly not advocating that everyone constantly ask themselves whether the grass isn't greener somewhere else! But we all know that sometimes you simply feel like maybe a change is needed. Sometimes it becomes obvious that we should at least consider leaving. At times like these, we need to first ask and then pray for wisdom regarding this too-oft unasked question. It keeps the focus off of us and places it squarely on God and His glory. Hopefully it will keep us from making the decision to leave a church based upon silly, trivial, or even down-right stupid reasons.

Don't leave a local church unless the LORD calls you to do so. But just be aware that He might reveal His will only when we're willing to ask the unasked question, and accept His answer.

Hatushili

Read More......

Missio-ditional thoughts

Yes, I know that's not a word. It's barely pronounceable, to be honest. But it fits, for the moment. If you think of something better, let me know.

Anyway, on to what I'm talking about...

I've been asked a couple of times recently about my thoughts on how Traditional model churches can be more effective at reaching postmodern people. [See some of my ramblings on postmodernity here.] I won't pretend to have real answers, but I do have some thoughts.

One of the biggest problems I think many Traditional model churches have is their definition of 'friendly'. Specifically, the way they understand the Biblical concept of 'welcoming the stranger' (see Matt 25:35, for example). In the past, being 'friendly' meant making your church building inviting. There was a time when unchurched people in a given local community might simply wake up one morning and decide to "go to church". If and when these people came to visit your facility, it was important to have a nursery, signs identifying the restrooms, bulletins to tell people what to sing and when to stand, etc... So Traditional churches (which were more or less the only model then) could honestly keep the commandment to welcome strangers by doing these things.

But times have changed. The odds of any unchurched person waking up and simply deciding to "go to church" on a whim are slim to nil. Instead, these people will never even consider going to a church - unless we welcome them in. This means we have to be where they are on a regular basis, involved in their lives, living the gospel before them. We must be asking them into the life of the church, whether through small groups, a social event, a holiday, etc... I'm convinced that this is the way we obey the command to welcome strangers today.

Sadly, many Traditional model churches have not made this switch in their thinking. They still see themselves as 'welcoming' because they are committed to smiling and shaking hands with any visitor who happens to come into the building.

But people aren't coming into the buildings much anymore.


And it's because we aren't really welcoming them anymore.

What I'm saying has a label - it's called Missional thinking. I am convinced that Missional thinking can be relevant to the Traditional model. I'll leave you to argue whether doing so would, in fact, make a Traditional model no longer a truly Traditional model.

If this has piqued your curiosity, I'd encourage you to visit Friend of Missional - just click the red logo on this page. There you'll find loads of information and lots of food for thought.

There's more that could be said on this subject - more that needs to be said, to be frank. And not just by me...

Any Christ-follower concerned about fulfilling the Great Commission in this present age should at least be conversant with this concept.

Not that I have an opinion about this or anything...

What do you think, though?

Hatushili

Read More......

My Big Announcement

As promised, I've got a fairly major announcement to make. But first, some context...

Good News Baptist Church (GNBC) is the assembly my family has called 'home' for the last eight years. It is what I have called a Tradition model church, and one that we've really enjoyed over the years. I haven't always personally agreed with everything that's gone on there, but who's ever agreed with everything their church family did?

As you know if you've read much of my blog, I'm not quite a Traditional model kind of guy. I'm not saying the Traditional model is bad; just that it doesn't normally fit the way I personally think ministry and church should be done.

If all this is true, then the obvious question you're likely asking is, 'Why have you attended such a church for eight years?'. There are lots of answers; let me give you a few of the biggest:

My Sunday School class. I love my Sunday School class members. I love the dynamic of the class. I love the attitude they have toward one another and toward God's Word. I love the fact that they actually listen to me!

My children. They love the AWANA ministry. They love many of the people there. Noah, my oldest, is his Sunday School teacher's (Rich Baughman) biggest fan. Rebekah, my eight year old, loves her Sparks leader (Judy Hephner). All of my children adore the Pastor.

The LORD's leading. I've long maintained that a person ought to attend the church that the LORD leads them to, and that they ought not leave that church unless the LORD specifically leads them away. It's a conviction - I can't really prove it from Scripture. But it's a personal conviction I've held for many, many years.

There are lots of additional reasons. Lots of them. But ... as you've likely guessed by now ...

... we've officially left this church.

Why? As I prepare for full-time vocational ministry myself, it's important to me to return to my roots, as it were. I need to involve myself in the ministry of a local church that more precisely fits my personal vision for how church should be done. That does not mean that I think GNBC is bad or wrong. It's just different.

I feel led by God Almighty in this direction. I had not felt this leading before, despite my differences of opinion. The LORD had things for me to learn there, and I suppose I've learned them (since He's leading me away now).

It's been a difficult and sad decision, to be honest. But at the same time it's been exciting to see God work and move in this (and so many other) way lately.

That's about all I want to say on the subject, at least for now. If you want to comment, feel free. But if you want to know more information, you'll have to email or call me personally. I welcome your continued prayers for my family as we seek His leading for the present, as well as His direction into vocational ministry.

Hatushili

Read More......

A Model for the Local Church

I'm becoming increasingly convinced that many churches have lost focus on what's important. As I've posted about before, it seems that many Attractional model churches have placed Evangelism above any other pursuit - a position that is understandable, but nevertheless unBiblical. Too many Traditional churches have placed Preaching above any other pursuit - again understandable, yet still unBiblical. And in my limited understanding of Incarnational models, it looks like many of them are placing Community above all other pursuits - tempting, but not Biblical.

Lest this begin to sound like an advert for "The Purpose Driven Church", let me say upfront what most of you already know about me - I'm not a huge Attractional model fan, nor do I think Saddleback is the model for us all to follow. This post is not motivated by Warren or Saddleback. It's motivated by a growing sense of unbalance that I see around me. My pastor is always preaching the virtues of "balance", and with good reason. The more churches I study, the more case-studies I read, the more I visit, the more I dialogue ... the more I think so many of us are missing the very simple truth of the local church...

Let me start with some theology. If you ask most OT scholars what the fundamental message of the OT is, they tend to say something like "God is Holy". This is, I understand, a generalization - but many OT Theology guys do make this claim. And I tend to agree. If you trace the pages of the OT, every page is full of His Holiness. That's not to say other principles don't run through the threads of the OT - I'm just attempting to assign a primary thread.

In the same way, many NT Theology guys would tell you that "Love" is the primary thread running through the NT. In particular, "love God and love your neighbour". So if these claims are true, shouldn't our model for understanding the local church have heavy doses of His Holiness and Love? Stay with me...

Now let's turn to the Westminster Confession (WC), which proclaims what virtually all Christians would agree to: "The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever". Where Piper would change the "and enjoy Him" to "by enjoying Him", he - like most Evangelicals - would still agree with the fundamental thesis of the WC.

So drawing from the theologies of both the OT and the NT, as well as the great wisdom of the WC, it looks like our model for local church should include His Holiness, Love, and God's Glory. Still with me?...

Now turn to the pages of Scripture themselves and we find all manner of "good" things that local churches and God's people should be involved in doing. Probably all of us could quickly turn to verses that admonish us to "preach the Word" (2 Tim 4:2), to "love one another" (John 13:34), to "love mercy" (Micah 6:8), to "worship Him" (John 4:23), to "pray without ceasing" (1 Thess 5:17), etc... But simply compiling a list of these virtuous behaviours is a rather "shotgun" approach to finding a model for the local church. Each could turn to his own personal favorite and declare it to be the primary purpose. Some would (and have) declared Preaching the primary purpose of the local church. Other would (and have) declared Worship the primary purpose of the local church. Isn't there some framework we can hang all of these truthes on?

I think there is. Let me illustrate it this way:


This is what I'm increasingly coming to believe is the best general model for the local church to follow. It leaves room for local communities to emphasize whatever their local context requires, but it keeps us grounded in a Biblical view of things - and it keeps us balanced.

Let me explain the model. I can see no higher purpose recorded in pages of Scripture than "God's Glory". I whole-heartedly agree with the WC on this point - as has, not coincidentally, virtually every Christian thinker in the history of the Church. If this is the case (and can it really be otherwise?), then it must be the "umbrella" under which all of our efforts are concentrated. But the NT provides a more specific framework for the local church. As so many have already pointed out, the two primary statements given to God's people in the NT are 1) The Great Commandment and 2) The Great Commission. Hence, I've placed these as the sub-headings under "God's Glory". Then, under each of these two great statements, I've randomly placed many virtuous behaviours that support one (or perhaps both) of these sub-headings.

Within this framework, if a local church has a special giftedness or calling toward ( for example) preaching and teaching then they should feel free to emphasize those outworkings - but not to the exclusion of others. And certainly not in such a way that elevates them to where only "God's Glory" should be! Let us never say that Worship (for example) is really the label on the umbrella! Only His Glory can be in that exalted position. And let us never ignore those two great statements given to us in the NT. If we focus too much on Community, how are we ever to give enough weight to "Go and make disciples"? If we give too much weight to Preaching, how are we ever to focus enough on "Love God and your neighbour"?

So let me know, guys - is this framework useful to your thinking? Does it strike you as unbalanced in any way? Have I forgotten something big? What should be added or taken away? Is it truly as flexible to a local context as I'm implying?

This is a BIG issue, guys. I really covet your input.

Hatushili

Read More......

Book Review: Cross-Cultural Connections

In his book Cross-Cultural Connections, Duane Elmer seeks to lay a foundation of understanding and help for those preparing to enter another culture. He specifically intends to address Christians headed into cross-cultural ministry opportunities, but his text would be of value to many other situations – be it business, travel, or otherwise. Reading through a text like this should be a mandatory starting point for anyone seeking to minister cross-culturally...

Elmer's book goes beyond simply opening peoples' eyes to the existence of cross-cultural pitfalls. It's basic strength is in the way it is formated. By working his readers systematically through a general perspective, expectations, coping skills/attitudes and specific (and common) sources of frustration, Elmer's book is very practical. I can even see someone reading this book while on route to culture X benefiting from it (though certainly more thorough thinking and training would be ideal).

Especially useful are his chapters on “attitudes and skills”. There are a theoretically infinite number of possible cross-cultural pitfalls, so instead of trying (in vain) to enumerate and work through them all, Elmer offers a general-purpose skill set that can be used to help process whatever cultural difficulties or tensions might arise. It is not coincidental that his suggested “attitudes” are in reality simply extensions of how a Christ-follower should live and move and breathe in his/her daily life anyway. Openness, acceptance and trust (the three primary attitudes Elmer discusses) are all skills/attitudes that each of us (as Christians) should be striving to demonstrate whether in our own culture or another.
Very practical; very relevant; very helpful – Elmer's book will be of value to anyone in Christian ministry, but especially to those who seek to work cross-culturally. Don't let it's brevity fool you – this is one book that should be on the “must read” list of anyone who wants to better understand his/her neighbors in the world.

Hatushili

Read More......

Book Review: Ministering Cross Culturally

Sherwood Lingenfelter - that's a great name, eh? His book on cross-cultural ministry is good too.

How's that for a snazzy introduction to a review? If I've not scared you off with my less-than-impressive prose, read on...

Lingenfelter mixes his extensive personal experience ministering among the Yapese in the 1970s with sound missiological and anthropological studies to come up with a helpful book on ministering across cultural boundaries.

His fundamental thesis is that we, as Christians wishing to minister across the boundaries of culture, must utilize "an incarnational model for personal relationships" (the subtitle of the book) to be most effective. This means that we must try to embody the local culture as best we can. We don't try to "go native" - everyone recognizes the shallowness of such an attempt. We simply try to become what Lingenfelter calls 150% people - giving up some of your own culture and adding as much of the other as you can for the purpose of relating well. In fact, he argues that this is precisely what Jesus did in His earthly ministry.

Much of the book is devoted to raising awareness of some classic categories of culture. For example, some cultures are "crisis oriented" (think: insurance, long-range planning, contingencies, etc...) and other are "non-crisis oriented" (think: take life as it happens). Neither system is necessarily better than the other - just different. That's an important point - we absolutely cannot come to another culture with the presupposition that ours is right and better in every way! We're doomed to fail if we think this way.

One of the most insightful comments he makes relates to a change in his own view. Near the end of the book (p.114), Lingenfelter says "In the first edition of this book, I suggested that the system of culture was in itself neutral [read: amoral, as discussed on this blog here], but the people within the culture were moral or immoral. I no longer hold this position. I believe that the system of culture, like the people within the culture, is both moral and immoral". This is a very welcome change from what is usually assumed.

The challenge, then, is to figure out how much of a given culture we can ethically and morally adopt in our efforts to communicate cross-culturally. By making people aware of some of the common pitfalls, and by vividly illustrating these cultural differences with stories of the Yapese, Lingenfelter offers sound advice to anyone seeking to minister to people unlike themselves - whether across national boundaries or even within our own cities.

Hatushili

Read More......

Book Review: Emerging Worship

This post is overdue, having finished the book Emerging Worship some weeks ago. Sorry for the delay - hopefully my memory is still fresh enough to write a cogent post.

Dan Kimball is a prominent figure in the emerging church movement (if you've been paying attention, you've noticed I stopped capitalizing the term), having written the well-received The Emerging Church in 2003. I've not read it yet, but intend to. I've been told it's better than Emerging Worship. Anyway, on with the review...

Kimball starts out with a very important truth that often gets lip service but nothing more: Worship is not just singing!! Sadly, most of us still use the terms synonymously. But we shouldn't, and Kimball implores us not to.

With that in mind, Kimball discusses the how and why of creating "emerging worship". Notice that he doesn't discuss just the 'how'. He spends a great deal of time talking about why a given local church felt the need to establish emerging worship - it's not just something to do to be different. This is a point that the fad-seekers need to hear. Don't do emerging worship just because it's new and hip.

Additionally, Kimball spends some time promoting a Missional view of ministry. He juxtaposes the "church built upon weekend services" with the "church built upon mission" concepts, showing (graphically) and telling why they are so very different - and why you should choose Missional.

Kimball also goes into detail discussing the worship environments that a number of specific churches have created. The book will give you plenty of ideas and concepts to try in your local context if you feel so led.

He ends the book largely on the topic of Vintage Faith Church, where's he's a pastor. This discussion brings to light another subject for another post - multi-congregational churches, church-within-a-church models, sister/hybrid models, etc... But on it's own, Kimball's discussion of Vintage Faith is a great story of why an emerging model was chosen and how not to distance oneself from other models.

Sorry for the brevity of the review - I'm sure I've not done the book justice. It's a good and a valuable read if your interested in the emerging movement, particularly emerging worship. Read it; read it NOW! : )

Hatushili

Read More......

Philosophy of Ministry 101

Since we're talking about various models of "doing church" on this blog in recent weeks, I thought I'd lay out some of the strengths and weaknesses of varying models. In my view, there are three primary ways of "doing church" that I consider viable and common today. For sake of simplicity, I'll call them Traditional, Attractional, and Incarnational...

By Traditional, I mean (most likely) the church you grew up with. Steeple in the front, organ and piano on the platform, hymns, 30 minute sermon/lecture, etc... Most small town churches and plenty of others are Traditional. Doctrinally they can be and are all over the map, but in terms of form they're Traditional.

By Attractional, I mean churches like Willow Creek or Saddleback (or NorthRidge). The premise is to consciously try to attract the "seekers" by holding services that are non-threatening, comfortable and composed in a cultural language easily understood. This usually means using very contemporary music (often "secular") and doing everything with high production value. Virtually every Attractional church I know of has adopted the "Excellence honours God and inspires people" mantra I mentioned in this post.

By Incarnational, I mean churches that attempt to be Christ's body everywhere. Their worship services are designed to be authentic expressions of praise from the lips of the local body. They believe that "seekers" might well be attracted to that level of authenticity, but that's not why they do it. They are more interested in community than rigid doctrinal conformity. Many are very small, meeting in homes or wherever they can. Some, like Westwinds, are much larger.

So what are the ups and downs of these models? Here's my take - my personal opinion that I invite you to interact with:

Traditional:

Strengths - good sense of community (often rooted in the local rural community and carried into the life of the church), strong sense of doctrinal agreement (they usually tightly define their doctrinal positions within the context of membership), longevity and rootedness (many of them have been around for generations).

Weaknesses - sense of community identity often not drawn from church but town, inability to "agree to disagree" on many doctrines and beliefs, outdated cultural language (who really listens to organs outside of a church context?), usually weak at evangelism, unwillingness to accept change (even when absolutely required for survival), typically missing an entire generation of people (primarily 18-30 yr old adults).

Attractional:

Strengths - strong emphasis on evangelism (often with astounding numbers of people coming to Christ), often many more material resources than other churches, willingness to change as needed, fairly able to maintain doctrinal standards.

Weaknesses - little sense of authentic community, lack of depth of Biblical studies, difficulty leading people into discipleship, typically missing postmodern adults, foster a "watch the show" mentality.

Incarnational:

Strengths - strong emphasis on discipleship, strong sense of Biblical community, strong emphasis on spreading mercy and grace.

Weaknesses - very (often too) broad doctrinal positions within the local assembly (frankly, some are involved in heresy), often de-emphasis on "evangelism" (sometimes taking "friendship evangelism" too far), tendency to deconstruct virtually all of Christianity without an equal vigor to reconstruct anything of value, often missing an entire group of people (moderns in general, older people in particular).

These are broad brushes - I recognize that. I'm not intending to say or imply that all churches of a given philosophy of ministry adhere to the generalizations I've laid out. They are general observations. In particular, they are my observations.

Which leaves me with two questions:

1. What have you observed (where do you agree or disagree with me)?

2. So what? What do we do with this collected information?

Hatushili

Read More......

Westwinds and the Incarnational Model

Jered had some questions about some things I talked about during Sunday School last week. He addressed them in a comment on an earlier post, but I think this conversation might get long and I'm therefore setting them into their own post. Let me take Jered's questions one at a time, and I'll welcome your thoughts thereafter. By way of context, here's part of Jered's original comment:

In Sunday school you mentioned the acrostic IPAC for the Incarnational church, Westwind, I believe. Everything about that model cried out to me; the focus on imagination and creativity, the embracing of authenticity, the empowering of the congregation to do good works, and obviously the communal focus....

First of all, yes - it was Westwinds in Jackson, MI that I was talking about. They are a self-described Emerging church. Just so we're clear, the iPAC acronym is theirs. Imagination, Permission, Authenticity, Community: iPAC. There's a flash sequence on the bottom of their homepage that visually identifies this creed.

...is the Incarnational model synonymous with emerging or missional or is it another closely related way of doing things?

Westwinds does, in my opinion, serve as a great example of the so-called Incarnational model of ministry. The Attractional model says, "Create an environment that will attract seekers and make them feel safe and comfortable". The Incarnational model says, "Create authentic community as a help to the spiritual growth of the congregation and as a testimony to God's glory; seekers, should the Spirit lead them, will see this depth and sincerity and perhaps be attracted to it (though that's not the point)". Okay, maybe nobody would actually say that, but that's my take on Incarnational.

"Missional" is not exactly the same as Incarnational. Missional describes the philosophy of ministry for the local church; Incarnational describes the philosophy of community. The two definitely overlap, but to keep the meaning of the words distinct, I'll keep this distinction a bit more academically than it might appear in reality.

"Emerging" is a very nebulous term right now. There is no single accepted definition. But for me and in this context, it is the catch-all term that sums up these two concepts: emerging churches are (by and large) both Incarnational and Missional. One can be Missional without being Emerging - the FGBC, for example. That's Fellowship of Grace Brethren Churches, for you non-Grace Seminary folk! They are decidedly Missional in their thinking, but not Emerging (though they're not all anti-Emerging).

I'd encourage all of you to poke around on Westwinds website. They are one of the more theologically orthodox of the emerging churches that I know much about. Read and see what they have to say.

And let me know what you think.

Hatushili

Read More......

Change Without Compromise, part 2

If you look through the comments on my "emerging theory" blog, you'll find this:

I was just searching the net and found your blog entry about the conference at NorthRidge. I would love to hear more of your thoughts regarding the conference: delivery, message, and content. Was it practical/applicable or was it simply informational for you?

It was posted by Scott - a man I don't know in any way at all. Just so we're clear, Scott is a complete stranger to me (as far as I know). But he asked a very good question, and I thought I'd answer it. My previous post ("Change Without Compromise") addressed it in some ways, but I'll try to stay to the parameters Scott set forth...

Delivery: Change Without Compromise was delivered almost exclusively by Brad Powell. Brad is a very effective communicator. He is passionate, genuine, articulate and engaging. It would be very hard to critique Brad as a speaker. Someone older than I might say he was too sarcastic at times, but not those of my generation.

He's clearly making an attempt to look young and therefore "relevant" to culture, which I admit did bother me some. From his hair style to his clothing choices, he seemed just a small bit like he was trying too hard. Like most postmoderns, my radar for "poser" is on the hyper-sensitive setting, so maybe I'm being too hard on him...

Message: Brad's message is a fine one - sometimes churches simply must change. In fact, Brad would argue, all churches must be always changing to be "relevant" to the culture. Here I disagree, but more on that later.

As for the "sometimes you just have to change" message, he's absolutely right. Far too many of our American churches look like museums of the 1950s. They are completely uncomfortable, completely irrelevant, completely unacceptable - frankly - to the vast majority of Americans. And change is HARD, another message that Brad knows from deep and painful experience. He encouraged everyone at the conference to pursue the necessary changes as if "playing to an audience of One" - which is precisely what we should all be doing.

The steps he offered and the advice he gave for implementing change were often spot-on, I think. He affirmed for me some theories of change I'd studied, but also offered a level of personal experience I hadn't encountered before. I found myself genuinely infected by his "if we could change, you can change" mantra. Rarely has a church faced such an uphill battle as Temple Baptist (now NorthRidge). While I might not whole-heartedly endorse where they are now, it's certainly a vastly better place than where they were.

Content: The content of the conference was pretty much a long series of group sessions led by Brad, centered around the fundamental message of change (without compromising Biblical truth - an emphasis I really appreciated). But, as I mentioned above, some of the particulars I had a hard time with:

All churches must be always changing to be "relevant" to the culture: Not true, folks. In a word, here's why: multi-generationalism. If we foster multi-generational churches, we will have various people "in house", as it were, that are relevant to other like them by default. Want to be relevant to 70 year olds? Have some 70 years olds in your church. How about skater kids? Have some in your church. 40-something businessmen? Have some in your church. Authentic community fosters authentic relevance. The truth is that attractional model churches live by this truth and don't even know it - they've created an artificial environment that is "relevant" to only one slice of culture (primarily upper-middle class white suburbia) . And they wonder why they can't reach postmoderns!

Excellence honors God and inspires people: Wrong again. Excellence can honour God, but it can also be fake, or at least look fake. Excellence can inspire people, but it can also intimidate them or give them a "watch and see" (while the "excellent" do their thing) mentality. God desires our best, not our excellence. If your best is singing a bit off key, go for it! But Brad boldly declared that we shouldn't let such a person sing before the congregation - ever! He literally posed the age-old situation: what if aunt Sally tells you she's "got a song in [her] soul" and wants to let it out? Brad's answer? Tell her "good, but keep it there" because none of us want to hear it. I seriously almost cried during the conference at this point...

Our competition is bars and malls and restaurants and such, so we must look as good or better than them: Again, wrong. Our "competition" is sin and the sin nature and the Devil. Maybe add materialism and sex to the list too. In short, our competition is Darkness, and we have the Light. But we are in no serious way "competing" with the shiny temples of American consumerism, are we? Is it any wonder that Attractional models seem to only attract people who would otherwise spend their Sundays at these shiny temples of American consumerism? Oh wait, don't Attractional models often at least look like shiny temples of American consumerism? Yes, friends, they do and they often are.

So once again, I find myself arriving at the same place. Attractional model churches (including NorthRidge) seem very good at evangelizing, especially a specific demographic (that happens to be ginormous in America right now - Boomers). But they seem inherently designed to stifle authentic community, without which they will never reach the coming postmodern wave.

I hope that helps, Scott.

Hatushili

Read More......

Change Without Compromise

I've now officially had a few days to process some of the things I saw and heard at the Change Without Compromise conference last week. As a reminder (since I wrote about it earlier), it's a conference held at a mega-church grown in the Attractional (seeker) model. The principles taught were designed to help you move a church through needed but difficult transition...

I don't have a lot of this stuff settled in my head. I'm still working through the implications of tons of ideas. But I do have some initial thoughts. So on to my brief list of observations/comments about this mega-church (and presumably other):

1. The place really looks and feels like "McDonald's does church". It's too well put-together, if you know what I mean.

2. "Excellence honors God and inspires people" (the catch phrase of so many attractional churches) is only partly true. They give you the feeling that what they really mean is only excellence honors God and inspires people. Nothing could be further from the truth, to be honest. If you have to ask why, you don't get postmodernity.

3. They are doing an amazing evangelistic work. How many churches can honestly say that more than 50 people trusted the LORD in the first week of February within the context of their ministry?

4. They are really not good at much else in the Christian life. I've ranted for years that the highest goal in life is not the Gospel and leading souls to Jesus. The highest goal in life is God's glory. One of the ways this is seen is through the spread of the Gospel. Maybe even the chief way, but not the only way. Attractional models clearly seem to put the Gospel where the Glory should be.

5. Postmoderns don't dig it. Q: "Of the 12,000ish people who call your church their own, how many do you have in your college-age ministry?". A: "About 80". Reason (IMHO): postmoderns can see shallow a mile away.

6. Deep people (in general) don't seem to dig it: Q: "Of the 12,000ish people who call your church their own, how many come to the Bible-study/Sunday School classes you offer?". A: "About 120". Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying people who like SS are necessarily "deep" and those that don't aren't. This tidbit was just one in a series of pieces of information that lends itself to the theory that attractional models inherently attract people looking for merely "the show".

7. Great place for a concert. Poor place for fostering authentic community.

8. We have to look great because we're competing with bars and restaurants and malls that look great. I'm sorry - wrong answer. Please play again sometime.

Hatushili

Read More......

My emerging theory

So here I am at this conference (see post below). I've been through two days of it so far; half a day more. It's being held at and by a HUGE mega-church of the Seeker variety. I'm trying to process what's been said thus far, so what I'm about to write are by no means my final thoughts. I'm just "thinking out loud", as it were...

I've been exposed to a new term: attractional model. Seeker churches are a kind of attractional model of doing church - you do whatever you can to attract people to come and see you (without compromising doctrine, in the view of the church holding the conference) and thereby gain an audience to share the Gospel. It's wildly successful at that, here at NorthRidge: their ministries saw 51 people make a commitment to Christ in the first 7 days of this month already!

But what they're not good at is discipleship or depth of community. The director of adult ministries very candidly admitted that they don't even know how many people are involved in small groups. They know they have a problem. They know their worship services alone cannot accomplish community or discipleship. They also believe it's a challenge common to attractional models (think Willow Creek or Saddleback, for example).

On the other hand, incarnational models of doing church (think emerging or missional) are very good at discipleship and community, and not as good at evangelism (at least compared to attractional models - a lot of this has to do with demographics, but now I'm getting off my topic...).

So I'm wondering: both models can be effective, but is it as simple as this?


Attractional: EVANGELISM and discipleship
Incarnational evangelism and DISCIPLESHIP


More importantly, if this is true (and it's definitely an 'if' for me right now), then why can't the two models work together? Why can't attractional model churches work with or even plant incarnational models to somehow work together? What about the concept of one church and yet multiple congregations? There are a lot of ramifications to this thinking that I've not run through my head yet, but it's a theory I'm thinking through right now, and I'd love it if ya'll would help me...

Hatushili

Read More......