Missional: Preservation or Persevering?

Recently I read several quotes from Church leaders about the lukewarm Church in America. I received these quotes on a page from a local ministry to the poor - Empty Tomb, a ministry that has put beliefs into action. One of the quotes on that page caught my eye because I have been thinking a lot recently about what it means for our church to be missional. Here is the quote that stopped my reading down the page.

"Presbyterian (USA) pastor and organizer Robert Linthicum observed, 'The church has always talked about mission, but we organize ourselves for preservation, not mission.' Jerry Van Marter, 'Giving It All Away'; Presbyterian News Service; posted 1/17/07; ; pp1-3 of 8/4/07 5:06 PM printout."

That is a Cliff's Notes version of what it is to avoid being missional: organizing ourselves for preservation, not mission. Mission is risky. We may not survive. But if we risk being missional, we may live like we have never lived before. We may reproduce that new life in others. It seems like I have read that before. Jesus said: "I tell you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains just a single grain; but if it dies, it bears much fruit" (John 12:24).

So to be missional must be the reverse of that - to organize ourselves around mission rather than merely preserving ourselves. To be willing to die to live is to be missional. To be missional is to persevere with the mission Jesus gave us: to go into all the world and make disciples.

Jesus also said "those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will save it" (Luke 9:24). Save their life sounds a lot like preserving their life to me. What it means to be missional is getting clearer. It is to lose your life for Jesus' sake. To be missional is to persevere in losing, for Jesus' sake.

An Interest Based or Missional Church?

Leaders of our church have been discussing the difference between an interest-based church or a missional, or mission-focused, church. The catalyst for these conversations was our recent Focus Groups and a book that many of our leaders have read, called Transforming Church, by Kevin Ford. (It is available in our Church Library). I am leaning on Kevin Ford’s descriptions and definitions presented to us in his assessment of our church, as I ruminate on this question: What is the difference between an interest-based church and a missional church?

A mission-focused church is trying to accomplish something. An interest-based church is trying to provide something. Both exist on behalf of a constituency. But the constituency of a mission-focused church is always outside the church. The constituency of an interest-based church is almost always inside the church. Interest-based churches create a culture where people feel entitled to ministry or programs based on their individual interests or agendas. The goal becomes satisfying people. An expectation can develop that every program will meet every need; every program will have a board or committee, a budget line item, a staff person who will champion their cause.

Being an interest-based church can be life-threatening. In the attempt to accommodate every need, provide committee, staff and budget support for the growing needs, the church could implode from its own growth! An interest-based church may also become irrelevant because so much is invested in trying to be all things to all people, that the church is unable to do a few things well. A danger also lurks for people to have ministry fatigue from doing so many things.

A mission-focused church, on the other hand, in trying to accomplish something, is looking for a clear result or outcome, and therefore has a laser sharp focus. It eliminates ministries that pull it off focus so the church can be effective in their agreed-upon mission. Mission-focused churches measure success by their achievements. They do a few things really well. Every ministry is aligned to do those few things well. The governing structure supports this focus. Staffing is more specialized than general. Specific strategies drive the ministries of a mission-focused church. The budget supports those strategies. Staff is re-aligned to support those strategies. Everything focuses on those strategies.

An interested-based church, rather than trying to produce a result is trying to produce a benefit, such as resources, fellowship groups, Bible studies, Sunday School classes, youth ministries, senior-citizen ministries, small groups and children’s ministries. Will a mission-focused church not have these ministries? It is likely that a mission-focused church may have the same ministries, but they will be aligned to accomplish the goal.

The difference between mission-focused and interest-based is subtle, but distinct. The issue that Kevin Ford raised with us after he listened to our Focus Groups, is that most churches assume they should be mission-focused, but function as an interest-based church. The danger is saying we are one thing, but actually functioning in another way.

Kevin ford suggests that both models can work from an organizational perspective. But there is one sobering motivator: Jesus gave us a very clear mission - to make disciples who become his witnesses in the world! If we drift from those clear mission objectives, we drift from our Leader’s mission orders. That seems to me to leave us with no alternative than to become more focused, more intentional, on our Lord Jesus’ orders than we currently are.

I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist

March 9, I concluded a series: "I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist." The title was taken from the book by that title, written by Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek, published by Crossway books. Their material was a primary resource in developing this series and, appropriately, they were cited numerous times. You can listen to the series at www.fbc-cs.org; click on sermons.

The preparation/study for this series was a faith-renewing experience for me too. One parishioner said to me: "It really does take more faith not to believe than to believe." Yes, it does. Evidence is abundant. The Easter message is credible. As Geisler and Turek challenge their readers: Those who choose to deny the resurrection must come up with first-century sources that support their theories to explain away the resurrection (Geisler-Turek, pp 313-314). That would be a difficult assignment.

As I shared this series I was struck in a greater and greater way, by how important it is for us to visit the credibility issue. Christian faith is under attack. One would think listening to some popular media that you would have to turn your brain completely off to even consider Christian faith. We've had the attacks of the Davinci Code, Dan Brown's book published by Anchor; The Gospel of Judas by Bart D. Ehrman, Rodolphe Kasser, Marvin Meyer, Gregor Wurst, and published by National Geographic; and the supposed discovery of the lost tomb of Jesus in a book written by by Simcha Jacobovici and Charles Pellegrino and published by HarperOne, just to name recent attacks. I recall the cover of a major news magazine that announced I believe it was the Gospel of Judas, like it was a major new find - a front page story. It was laughable. Did they really think these "discoveries" were new? I wondered about the credibility of the magazine itself. When the news of the so-called "lost tomb of Jesus" broke it was as if someone had found something that would unravel Christianity. The secular press deleted it from relevant news almost instantly.

We need never fear careful investigation of our faith. It has solid, intellectual believability. If you would like to investigate further, I recommend the following resources . . .
1. I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be An Atheist, by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek, published by Crossway Books.
2. Is the Bible TRUE?: How Modern Debates and Discoveries Affirm the Essence of the Scriptures, by Jeffery L. Sheler, published by HarperSanFrancisco/Zondervan.
3. The New Testament Documents: are they reliable?, by F. F. Bruce, published by Inter-Varsity Press.
4. Record of Revelation : The Bible, by Wilford J. Harrington, O. P. published by The Priority press.

I often think about our brothers and sisters in the early church. They were under constant attack. The church was born with challenges to their message on every side. In case you haven't noticed, the church survived. Attacks on Christian faith are not new. After all, we follow Jesus Christ who was put on a cross because of who he claimed to be. But you know the rest of that story.

Turn About - A New Day for Evangelicals?

It was a stimulating way to spend a day off. I had looked forward to it. I was in Rockford to attend a retreat for the Judson University Board of Trustees. The morning was to be spent with two top evangelical leaders: Larry Eskridge, Associate Director of The Institute for the Study of American Evangelicals; and Mark Galli, Senior Managing Editor of Christianity Today magazine. I was not disappointed.
It was Mark Galli who particularly grabbed my attention. He talked about the place evangelicals now have at the table of discussion in America today. 'Wait,' I thought. 'Are not Christians being written off today, accused of being tuned to a frequency not located on planet earth?' Not so, said Galli. In the last five years, centrist evangelicals have a place at the table, he reported. Evangelicals are no longer clamoring for a place at the table. They are at the table.
Two to three times a month, Galli reported, he receives calls from such places as Time magazine, wanting to know what Christians are thinking and saying about an issue. We have a social presence in America today, he said. Galli said Rick Warren is the new Billy Graham. Warren identifies himself with our culture. He is very active in the fight against HIV/AIDS. Last year, a group of evangelicals was invited to the White House to dialogue with Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Evangelicals are now the voice of Christianity in America and the world, Galli thinks.
Who was Galli talking about when he used the term evangelical? Galli listed four defining characteristics. 1) Those who place Christ and the crucifixion at the center. They have a keen sense of our need to be changed, and it cannot happen on our own. We need redemption. 2) The importance of conversion. It is not just being better people. It is being turned around through relationship with Jesus Christ. 3) Those who are Biblically based. 4) Those who have an activist faith expressed in their daily living. They live the faith. They have a social conscience.
Galli reported that evangelicals are present in nearly every sphere of American life. To reinforce his point, Mark Galli recommended D. Michael Lindsay’s book Faith in the Halls of Power: How Evangelicals Joined the American Elite.
How should we respond to this open door? Is it possible that we could misuse this opportunity? Galli thinks that is a possibility. Of utmost importance for evangelicals today is to be faithful stewards of this new attention. Pray for those who have occasions to speak to people in power at this favorable time. For those of us who are evangelicals, we must be conscious that we represent mainstream Christianity today if Galli is right. Our words matter. Our lifestyles make a difference. Above all, we represent Christ in a world often confused by our staggering contemporary issues. May God, who has trusted us with this moment in history, find that we have been faithful.

Chosen!

It would have been a quiet Sunday afternoon. But we were on a mission to change our lives.

We had gotten the wild idea that we should get another dog. Because I have severe allergies, someone told us dachshunds were a low allergy trigger. Whether or not there is any truth in that, we were on our way to look at a dachshund. A show-dog. A testicle had not dropped for him, so the owner could not show him. She wanted to give him to a loving home - papers and all if we would have him neutered. That had been our plan. So we were on our way to Gilman, IL. We were to meet at McDonald's . . . in the parking lot.

Let the dog choose you, we had heard. We were used to getting dogs from a Shelter. One of our dogs came from a parishioner who lived on a farm. I stopped by their home. The little beagle stole my heart. He joined the family.

This trip would be different. We would let this dog make the decision. Strange.

We arrived at McDonald's and saw the owner’s vehicle. The time had come. Would we go home empty handed? Would we be suddenly struck with the responsibility of being dog parents and run? She got the little miniature dachshund out of the vehicle and put him on the ground. He was so cute! We were falling in love. But that caution. Would he choose us?

A dachshund’s nose is 100 times stronger than ours. There were a zillion things he could have sought with his nose, especially at McDonald's. He slowly walked toward me. Oh, no. He was choosing us. Now we had to decide. It was emotional. Would we choose him?

We did. He’s family now. It’s a challenge to have a pet. But we are glad we chose him. The story could be different if he had not chosen us.

Because he chose us, we wanted to choose him.

God chose us. That’s what Christmas means. He walked toward us. It was a long walk. Out of eternity, across the universe to a little, insignificant town. Bethlehem was a little like that McDonald's parking lot, where we met our Zep. Bethlehem is where we found out that God chose us. Now we must decide if we will chose him.

First Thanksgiving - Prayer Not Food

What image comes to mind when you think of the first Thanksgiving? A turkey cooked over an open fire, or in a wood burning stove? People gathered around a table eating more food than they need? Those are common images that gave inspiration to our American holiday.

I was reading some material on sermomillustrations.com recently and welcomed my own sense of history being corrected. Taken from Today in the Word, July 1990, p. 22, here is the record of a first official time of thanksgiving. Subsequently, I saw this story elsewhere.

"The first American Thanksgiving didn't occur in 1621 when a group of Pilgrims shared a feast with a group of friendly Indians. The first recorded thanksgiving took place in Virginia more than 11 years earlier, and it wasn't a feast. The winter of 1610 at Jamestown had reduced a group of 409 settlers to 60. The survivors prayed for help, without knowing when or how it might come. When help arrived, in the form of a ship filled with food and supplies from England, a prayer meeting was held to give thanks to God."

That was the first Thanksgiving.

What Excites You?

Reading early this morning in Dale Burke's book, How To Lead and Still Have a Life, I stumbled upon a sentence that halted my reading. It was this: "When your memories are more exciting than your dreams, you've begun to die" (page 115).

Memories are precious. I just reminded a family of that this week during a funeral. I'm grateful for memories of my dad and my wife's mother, who each passed away in recent years. I'm grateful for more distant memories of my wife's dad. But grateful describes my reaction to those memories, not exciting.

What if your most exciting thoughts are about what has already happened? What if life becomes all about preserving the past? How can one live in hope if we are always focused on what has already happened? What of God's promise to Israel in Jeremiah's prophecy: "I know the plans I have for you,” says the LORD. “They are plans for good and not for disaster, to give you a future and a hope" (Jeremiah 29:11)? God's people lived for centuries in hope of the coming Messiah. The Christian life is a life of expectation. Adoniram Judson's famous words pulsate with hope: "The future is as bright as the promises of God." We miss the hope of God's coming blessings and challenges when we do not look expectantly to the future.

Certainly our past is foundational. Some people remember great pain in their past. Some look back and see that things were easier, simpler. But the key word is "exciting." Do we want comfort and to be problem free? Or do we want things that excite us, challenge us and cause us to grow?

I think Burke may be right. When memories excite us more than dreams, we may indeed have begun to die.