Christ Seeker

Two Challenges - Crossing the Bridge/Continuing the Journey...

I am continuing to think out loud about this whole transition from ITA (institutional/traditional/attractional) to MI (missional/incarnational) in the local church.  And I want to highlight a couple of salient points made by my colleagues that are important to note as we continue the conversation. 

First, the goal is not just to cross the bridge.  My friend Joel's image of sailing the wide open sea actually captures this idea much better but for the sake of consistency let me stay with the whole "trail maintenance" analogy for a bit longer.  Obviously, the goal in building the bridge isn't just to get people to the other side.  It's to help further and continue the journey.  So while we discuss our "bridge-building" efforts, lets always remember that these things are but a means to a greater, higher end...the Kingdom of God! 

Second, my friend Andy makes an extremely important point from inside an institutional context.  Many if not all of these churches began with a missional heart.  They were propelled into god-forsaken (just kidding!) places like Kansas by the missio Dei.  Unfortunately, these institutions lost their sense of mission and purpose and became focused on self-perpetuation.  Andy is spot on when he says that what we need is to recapture the initial narratives that formed and shaped our communities from the beginning.  (Check Alan Hirsch here and here because I think this is exactly what he's talking about...)  Let me give you an example of the power of narrative to shape our thinking.  The church I served in Mobile, AL began fifty years ago when a local pecan orchard owner donated land to the presbytery for a new church.  This organic image really shaped the initial years of the church and it grew tremendously.  However, due to several factors (poor pastoral leadership being the main one) the narrative quickly changed and "the orchard" was replaced by "the family."  In the subsequent decades, the church became focused on how it met the needs of "the family" and as a result became more and more disconnected from its community, particularly as the community demographics changed and became more diverse.  Recapturing the original narrative of "the orchard" and all of its rich, growing, organic power to shape imagination might help recapture that original, missional ethos.

However, also as Andy points out, there is now the weight of the institution to bear.  The buildings.  The programs.  The staff salaries.  The overhead.  Quite frankly, the bridges that span the gulf between the ITA and MI shores are not strong enough (nor should they be...) to bear this load.  Or to use Joel's image, the ships we sail are simply not able to carry the ITA baggage we want to bring with us without sinking.

This, I think, is one of the more significant issues we face when we talk about the transition from ITA to MI.  We cannot take our "stuff" with us and this poses a major problem for us because of how much time and energy and money we have invested in the "stuff" of ITA church.  If we are going to set sail or journey along the MI shore, then we are going to have to divest ourselves of some of the baggage we are trying to carry.  To put it in stark biblical terms, if we are going to get back to a Tabernacle lifestyle, we cannot bring the Temple with us.  The tabernacle was built for movement, for the journey, for the wilderness wandering.  The Temple was built for permanence, for stability, to be the center of society.  MI churches long to take the tabernacle and go.  ITA churches long to build the Temple and stay.  This is the difference and why the transition from one to the other is so hard.

So, where does that leave us?  Are there concrete steps we can take (or pegs to hang out hats on in a local context - thanks Scott!) that will help us recapture a missional/incarnational ethos and set sail once again?  Here are few of the ideas bouncing around my head on this one...

1. PLANT NEW CHURCHES!!!  Did I emphasize that one enough?  The data is unequivocal...churches that are growing and expanding the Kingdom of God are seriously committed to planting new churches.  (See Ed Stetzer and others for the research...)  New churches not only do a better job at reaching the unchurched, they are also a great concrete way for existing churches to literally "give themselves" away for the Kingdom of God.  Depending on the model you use (and I would advocate here for a multiplicity of models...), you have to give away resources, time, people, money, etc.  Without further belaboring my point here, I don't think there is a more effective way to sharpen a missional focus than by planting new faith communities. 
2. Begin a systematic divestment in your property...I know this one is scary and radical and I don't pretend to have any experience with it at all.  It just seems to make sense.  Perhaps this divestment means renting out your physical space as much as possible to the community.  Perhaps it means selling the property and becoming a renter yourself.  Perhaps it means selling the whole deal and moving.  I imagine there are lots of ways to skin this cat and would suggest exploring any and all opportunities since our property often forms the bulk of our overhead and exerts the most inward pressure because of mortgage and maintenance needs. 
3. Begin exploring alternative staffing models that don't include as many "professionals"...This one scares even me because of what's at stake personally for me.  However, I have begun to wonder if the whole idea of a professional clergyperson is antithetical to missional movement?  I know that the single greatest piece of overhead we have as a NCD is my salary.  Is this healthy?  Do I need to find a "real" job? :-) What resources could we turn loose if we didn't have to bear the cost of my salary, housing, benefits, and pension?  Just a question for us right now but I think one we need a lot of conversation around. 

Obviously, these are three radical steps and I don't suggest we take these lightly or flippantly.  There are serious issues at stake and choosing to pursue any or all of these will result in significant changes and new challenges for the local congregation. 

Searching for a bridge...

When I was growing up I had the distinct pleasure of participating in the Boy Scouts of America.  Troop 357 was one of the most active camping troops in south Denver, heading up into the mountains eleven months out of the year.  Twice a year, we went to Hankins Pass to perform trail maintenance on the hiking trails that had become worn through weather and heavy use over the previous months.  We would drive up Friday night, work all day Saturday, and then come home Sunday morning exhausted after a hard weekend's worth of work.  One of the main "maintenance" tasks was to build bridges where the old ones had washed away. 

Over the last few days I have raised a couple of very hard, very honest questions about the paradigm shift that is taking place in the church.  In doing so, I am trying to build on the work of much smarter people than myself (folks like Michael Frost, Alan Hirsch, Reggie McNeal, etc.) by drilling down and asking how these ideas translate to the local context of a PCUSA church.  In doing so, I fully recognize that every context is different and there is no "one size fits all" kind of church.  However, I do believe each congregation needs to struggle with what it means to be the church in a rapidly changing world and be willing to explore different ways to connect to our culture and our communities.  I have been challenged by my colleagues whom I have great respect for to think more deeply and not so easily reject institutional/traditional/attractional churches (ITA) and the transformation happening in their midst.  This leads me to pose yet a further question...

If we find ourselves on the banks of the ITA church looking across to the banks of the MI (missional/incarnational) church, are there bridges we can build to get from here to there?

Certainly, I am not the expert in these matters but perhaps have a somewhat unique perspective in that I served a small church in the Deep South for six years, have seen firsthand some of the struggles and heartache that comes with trying to instill missional/incarnational DNA into an established church, and now, as has been noted, I am an NCD pastor trying to nurture MI community from the start which comes with its own set of challenges!  The few ideas I offer here are preliminary at best and I would love to see others add their own ideas based on their own unique experiences.  In offering this list, I am taking for granted the definitions of missional/incarnational that I laid out in my first post, "Thinking out loud" and assuming that a church has decided to pursue MI not as a growth strategy but for the sake of God's Kingdom.

1. Begin by modeling the missional/incarnational life yourself.  Pastors are among the last people who truly exercise a great deal of freedom over their schedule.  Take advantage of this!  Schedule regular time out in your community.  Move into close, relational proximity with the people in your neighborhoods, in your community, and in your city. Ask the Spirit to guide you into new and deeper relationships with the people who live in those spaces.  Listen to them.  Live among them.  Love them without strings.  And let their needs, struggles, heartaches, passions, and perspectives enrich your life and give you new eyes to see!  Most importantly, make no exceptions for "church work" except in cases of dire emergencies!!!
2. Ask the Holy Spirit to identify a small group of people in your congregation who are open and willing to pursue MI life together.  Here we take seriously the "Way" of Jesus who called twelve disciples to pursue life alongside him as he lived and proclaimed the Kingdom of God.  Let me humbly suggest that we probably shouldn't expect to handle more relationships than the Son of God himself and maybe should set our sights on a group of about six to eight.  :-)  Pour your heart into these people, live life authentically before them, share with them your struggles and victories, your failures and successes, pray with them, read Scripture with them, and above all, do mission with them!  Move out into the margins of your society and live among the poor and the suffering.  Take the "Way" of Jesus literally as only so much can happen in a living room, classroom, or sanctuary!  After some time has passed and the MI life has taken root, turn them loose. To use a biblical metaphor, catch and release!  Empower them to invite others into the journey with them, to establish their own rhythms, and follow their own unique callings.  And then repeat the process yourself.  Grab another six or eight folks and, oh by the way, they don't have to all be in your congregation! Do this over the course of ten to twelve years or so and I imagine you will be looking at a completely different congregation. 
3. Privilege spiritual formation over administrative business.  This is one of the more difficult changes to instill but if you stick with it, I think you will find it bears great fruit!  All too often our leadership meetings are business meetings bookended by prayer.  Those who are more bold add a five minute devotional to get things started but what if we went further?  What if most of the time in our meetings was dedicated to Bible study and prayer?  What if we rejected the tyranny of the urgent and desperate drive for efficiency and instead walked the more narrow road of discernment and growing a truly spiritual community?  A recent quote I read sums it up well, "Nurture the kind of life and practices you want; starve those you don't want."  Let me warn you to be ready for resistance! After I shifted our agenda, we began spending an hour to an hour and fifteen minutes (of a two hour meeting) in Bible study and prayer.  This change probably took a full year to implement if not longer at the church I served.  There was a great deal of resistance to it initially but an amazing thing happened as we persevered.  God began re-focusing our attention.  We learned to listen better to each other and to the Spirit.  We were able to let go of petty business items we once spent so much time on.  And a spiritual community emerged.    

Will the practice of these lead to the emergence of MI community?  I must confess I am not sure.  Then again, if I am honest, when I think back to the Saturdays I spent doing trail maintenance with the Scouts, there were times I was sure we couldn't bridge the gulf.  Perhaps the river ran to swift or the gorge cut too deep or the raw material simply wasn't available.  However, there were also those times when help came from unexpected places and what seemed impossible became suddenly, surprisingly possible. Lesslie Newbigin shares with us great wisdom when he says, "the significant advances of the church have not been the result of our own decision about the mobilizing and allocating of resources rather the significant advances have come through happenings of which the story of Peter and Cornelius is a paradigm, in ways of which we have no advance knowledge." (The Open Secret - as quoted by Len Hjalmarson.)

Should all churches make the Missional/Incarnational leap?

My short answer to this question is "no" and that may surprise you.  You see, I am not convinced that this missional/incarnational way of life is for everyone.  Like I said yesterday, this shift is radical. The "surgery" required is radical.  The structural overhaul is radical.  And if we are not careful, the patient (in this case, a local congregation) may bleed out while on the operating table.  I think pastors and elders who have a passion for missional/incarnational community need to really wrestle with this question before they get started.  Here are some issues to think about if you are considering leading your church down this road...

• What does our community need from us as a church?
  
  • I think there are still areas of the country where an ITA church would thrive.  I think you see it certainly among the mega-churches on the West Coast and in Colorado.  You see it in the Deep South in certain places.  Without a doubt people meet God in powerful ways through the ITA model and that will continue to be the case for decades.  Will it continue to be an ever-diminishing segment of society?  Yes.  But it is still a viable segment nonetheless.  
• Who is in our church? 
  • Something I read recently hits the nail on the head, "When Jesus said to put new wine in new wineskins, he didn't say throw out the old wine.  Jesus wants all the wine.  He doesn't want to lose a drop!"  We need to ask not only what the needs of our community are but whether or not the people in the churches we serve have the resources (spiritually, emotionally, and physically) to start and sustain this change.  And while I actually think the people of God will surprise us with their resiliancy and strength, if we just give them the chance, the reality is that some churches will simply not be able to undertake this journey.
• Why do we need to make this change?  What are our motivations?  
  • This is perhaps the hardest question to answer because as leaders we are often asked to lead God's people in directions only we may be able to see.  However, after we have exegeted both our community and the church, then this question may be easier to answer than we first think.  One of my spiritual heroes once shared with me his heart to be a missionary.  He longed to be in missions.  He was sure God had called him into that arena of service.  But the reality was that his family, particularly his children, simply didn't have the strength or stamina for the work.  A wise mentor of his said to him, "God may have given you a heart for missions but he hasn't given your children the bodies for it."  I think the same thing applies to us as leaders.  God may have given us a heart for missional/incarnational community but he may not have given our congregations the strength or stamina for it.  And if that is the case, then it would be selfish and destructive to move forward.  
  • I think we also have to ask our local congregations about their motives for engaging in this journey.  Is it to recruit more members?  Institutional survival? To assuage anxiety over an uncertain future?  I think if we are honest, many if not most of our churches are dealing with these issues.  I think of the number of times I've been asked lately about how a local church can become more missional.  When I've probed a bit, it becomes clear the question is not born out of a desire to pursue the Missio Dei but rather to increase the membership rolls of a church so we can maintain buildings, pay our full-time pastor, and keep our programs running. 
• Have we counted the cost?  Are we prepared for the sacrifice?  
  • We have to honestly face the reality that the shift from ITA to MI will involve a great deal of pain.  Paradigmatic change comes with a high price.  We have to count the cost.  People will leave.  Those who remain will be anxious.  Leaders will be under duress.  We may have to dramatically reduce budgets or sell buildings or let go of staff or kill some of our programmatic sacred cows.  Challenging people to step forward into mature discipleship will not be easy.  Moving people from participants to partners in the Missio Dei will rock us to the core of our being.  Not settling for anything less than fully engaged discipleship from God's people will shock those who are used to defining their relationship with the church by attendance, giving, and serving on committees.

It is so tempting to lash ourselves to the latest, greatest idea to come down the pike.  I well remember going through my own "Purpose-Driven" phase with its "40 days of purpose" for both individuals and churches.  When an idea becomes all the rage, it is hard to block it out long enough to do the kind of thoughtful reflection necessary to discern the will of God for our lives and for the churches we are called to lead.  Missional theology has become the buzzword of the moment in our denomination and while I am absolutely committed to it as a way of life for myself and the new church we are forming, I recognize through my own experience that it may not be and probably isn't for everyone.  Thoughts? Pushback? Questions? 

A Year with Calvin...

Princeton Theological Seminary has offered a reading schedule for 2008 in John Calvin's most important work, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, in honor of the 500th anniversary of his birth.  You may not be a theology geek like me, but this is truly one of the most important works in Christian history.  If you are interested in following the reading schedule then go to this link and have it sent to you via Google reader or some other feed on a daily basis. 

Weston and Reyes-Chow on saving the Presbyterian Establishment...

Just finished watching a live conversation via the web between the Moderator of the PCUSA - Bruce Reyes-Chow, and Elder/Professor of Sociology - Beau Weston.  To give this post some context, Weston has recently completed a paper arguing for a more hierarchical model for our church, leaning on the administrative and executive gifts of our Tall Steeple Pastors(read: pastors of large, growing churches) who will fill the important posts and wield tremendous power/influence as a means of re-establishing the health and vitality of our denomination.  It was an interesting conversation to say the least and one I was keenly interested in since I read the paper and was deeply troubled by Weston's conclusions. 

The paper was flawed on a number of levels in my opinion, but primarily because Weston never deals with the most fundamental question...why does the PCUSA exist?  What is its purpose?  I wrote in this question during the interview and our Moderator posed it to Weston. I found his answer less than satisfactory to say the least.  He talked a bit about education and history but had nothing to say about mission!  I was stunned.  Weston is not just a sociologist...he is an Elder in the church. He has been called and ordained to lead people spiritually and yet not one mention of the Gospel, not one mention of the mission of redemption and reconciliation, not one mention of making more faithful disciples of Jesus.  (Now let me hasten to say that I am sure Weston agrees with me on this point...I just didn't hear it in his answer to my question.)

This is a critically important point...an organization's leadership structure is a reflection of the self-understanding of its purpose.  So for Weston, we need to invest power and authority in our tall steeple pastors because they are the ones who have been able to succesfully navigate the career track of our denomination and now occupy the greatest positions of influence.  They clearly know how to make the institution work and we should trust their leadership ability in this area.  But is that truly the purpose of the PCUSA?  To perpetuate itself?  That's at least what I understood Weston to be saying and it grieves me.

In my opinion, the PCUSA has one purpose and one purpose alone...to follow and participate in God's mission to redeem and reclaim the world in the name of Jesus Christ.  And if this is our true purpose, then we need to be asking what kind of leadership structure is necessary to accomplish this purpose.  I don't really have the answer to that question but I submit that it will move in the exact opposite direction Weston is proposing.  I think we will be decentralizing power and authority and investing/equipping God's people to become missionaries in whatever context God has placed them.  I believe we are moving towards smaller, more mobile, more agile communities of faith that are able to react and respond to the needs of those around them and who seek to pour the majority of their resources outward rather than spend so much on themselves. These smaller communities of God's people will probably not own buildings or pay professional clergy.  In short, they will not participate in a system that perpetuates the kind of hierarchy Weston wants to return to. 

Again, I am quite shocked that Weston made this move.  I would have thought with all the theological work that is being done focusing on Missio Dei and continuous vs. discontinuous change dynamics that we would have moved beyond these kinds of archaic solutions.

However, I do thank Bruce and Beau for having the conversation and for allowing people like me to listen in!  It is conversations like these that continue to further the connectionalism and community of our church!