Missional Misgivings
October 27, 2008
In his column in the Fall 2008 issue of Leadership Journal, Dan Kimball writes an excellent analysis about the so-called missional church movement. Some in that movement dismiss the attractional model, and large churches that use that model, as an ineffective way to reach young adults today. Kimball, who is an experienced, innovative pastor observes, “I see no evidence to verify this claim.” I agree.
Like Kimball, my heart longs for new models of effective church ministry to be created to better reach all kinds of people – particularly young adults. My frustration, again expressed more eloquently by Kimball, is many of the new methods being touted as the solution simply aren’t working. Kimball writes of a 35 member church that has been that size, in a city of several million, for more than a decade. This particular church has not grown, planted a new church, or otherwise multiplied itself – yet it proudly calls itself “missional.”
This baffles me. I have the same concerns about the house church movement. I am concerned when someone tells me they are part of a few couples who meet for “church” in their home. They have “real” fellowship and “serious” Bible study and “genuine community.” But they are the same little group they have been for years. No conversions. No baptisms. No missionary passion. Just a small group of Christians huddling and being “authentic.”
While the experience may be meaningful, please don’t call it church. Church, in its simplest definition, is a fellowship of people on mission. A house church movement is a legitimate form of church when it has the marks of the church – including reproduction and multiplication. Any new form of church – missional, house, emerging, etc. – is a welcome innovation as long as it actually functions as a
church.
Some may read this as the frustrated carping of an aging boomer who laments the methodological conformity of a past generation. If you think that, you don’t know me. Twenty years ago, I was immersed in starting a new church. I was the pastor of a new church that was criticized for its methods, practices, and crazy-innovations. We were called liberal and accused of not really being “Southern Baptist.” The church grew and is now one of the largest Southern Baptist churches in its area.
I know what it’s like to create a new church model. It’s tough. I am a cheerleader for younger Christian leaders who are on the cutting edge, experimenting with new models and trying desperately to evangelize and disciple this generation. My gripe is with innovators who mistakenly equate “new” with “effective.” Being a reactionary doesn’t make you a visionary.
So, let’s stop promoting models and start looking at results. Are the lost being converted? Are new converts being transformed? Is community happening? Is sound teaching being heard? If so, I’m with you no matter your label. If not, stop claiming ecclesiological superiority and have the courage to reinvent your church into a more effective model.
<< Return to Archive
Personal Fulfillment through Pregnancy
October 20, 2008
The San Francisco Chronicle is my favorite newspaper. It’s my daily primer on the unraveling of the Judeo-Christian ethic in American culture. Reading the Chronicle is a daily progress report on the systematic undermining of the values that produce strong families, communities, and ultimately, nations. There is no subtlety about the reporting in the Chronicle. It is a full-on, everyday praise sheet for politicians, corporate leaders, and individuals who promote these alternative values. Reading the Chronicle gives me insight into the strategies of those who are driving our culture further and further toward social chaos.
Here is a great example from Sunday, Oct. 18, 2009. A large, “happy couple” photo accompanied an article called “Bringing up baby – on the very first date.” A couple – Tammy and Evan – had a first date about a year ago. Tammy, age 39, informed Evan on their first date that she was planning to have a baby “this year.” She assured Evan he wasn’t part of the plan, and explained her impregnation options. After a second date, Evan suggested he could help with the process. He said, “I know how effective sex is.”
Tammy is now pregnant, expecting any day. Evan has moved in to help with the baby after it is born. This is a far cry from his previous plans for this year to “sell everything, buy a sailboat and fight off pirates in dangerous seas.” Tammy reports, “It’s unconventional but we’re happy.”
That’s nice. Tammy and Evan are happy. Tammy is having a baby, apparently to bring her some sense of personal fulfillment. She has a sperm donor – who even wants to stay around for a while and help with the baby. It will be interesting to see how things turn out in 10-12 years. The following predictions are based on my experience in pastoral ministry.
I predict Tammy will soon be a single parent. I predict there will be some sort of custody conflict – particularly about sharing the expenses of the child. I predict this child will grow up with insecurity, a sense of profound self-doubt, and/or a nagging feeling of inadequacy (like most of us who had absentee or unengaged fathers). If the child is a girl, I expect rebellious behavior designed to gain male approval. If the child is a boy, I expect rebellious behavior shown through inordinate risk-taking or violence. While I hope for a better outcome of this situation, my experience leads me to be more realistic, and negative, in my expectations.
My hope is Tammy and Evan will marry, commit to being a nuclear family through thick-and-thin, and raise their child in a secure, loving environment. I would really like to meet this couple and help them toward that end.
The celebratory tone of the article is the saddest part of this situation. This, my friends, is the picture being presented as the new normal for child bearing. Like buying a car or getting new outfit, having a baby is a means to personal fulfillment. A better reason to have a child is personal sacrifice, not personal fulfillment. A child is a gift from God. We sacrifice for their best – to propel them forward to serve God by making a difference in his world. A baby is not a means to personal fulfillment. A baby is celebration of a couple’s willingness to give themselves to each other, and to give themselves away for the good of another person entrusted to their care.
<< Return to Archive
Yes on Proposition 8
October 13, 2008
The No on 8 supporters, opposing the traditional definition of marriage, have crafted a deceptive television commercial now running in California. The commercial has two “soccer-moms” looking at family photographs. A same-sex couple is in one of the photos. The first woman says she is not comfortable with the relationship. The other says, quiet empathetically, “But you wouldn’t want to take away someone rights, would you?”
The homosexual movement has attempted to seize the high ground of civil rights to validate their movement. The civil rights movement is a struggle for fundamental human rights. Practicing homosexuality, or any other kind of sexual behavior, is a choice – not a right. For something to be a right, the condition prompting the exercise of the right must be inborn to the human condition. The assumption, subtly communicated through this commercial and at the root of the issue for homosexual activists, is they believe homosexuality is an inborn trait, not a choice.
Does this matter in the debate about the definition of marriage? My answer may surprise you. It does not. Even if homosexuality is somehow connected to a genetic source, that still does not make it automatically acceptable for a moral society. Suppose geneticists discover a shared genetic quality among pedophiles. Will this change society’s prohibition on this behavior. Let’s hope not! Suppose there is a common genetic thread discovered among alcoholics? Does this make drunkenness an acceptable, healthy lifestyle choice? No.
No matter your genetic makeup, you are still responsible for your behavioral choices. You may be genetically prone to obesity, but you still have to control your appetite to have a healthy lifestyle. You may be genetically prone to anger, but lashing out violently is not excusable. You have to control your urges.
Those of us who support Yes on 8 to restore and restrict the definition of marriage to one man and one woman are not attacking anyone’s rights. Homosexual adults have the right to practice their lifestyle in private. Heterosexual adults have the same right. The definition of marriage is not about sexual practice. It is about establishing a definition of marriage that supports the best hope for stable families, communities, and society at large.
Polls indicate this election will be close. The stakes are high. Don’t be deceived by the appeal to losing so-called civil rights. Vote yes on 8.
<< Return to Archive
Guys
October 6, 2008
More than 30 years ago, a mentor gave me this advice for success in pastoral ministry. He said, “Build your ministry on the Word of God and around men.” Some might react to that statement, claiming sexism, or in some other way diminish the focus of his counsel.
But his advice worked well for me as a pastor. A primary focus for me was building men who would assume leadership roles in my church. This doesn’t mean I didn’t also train women for leadership roles. Throughout my ministry, women have had prominent roles in the churches and organizations I have led. But, as a pastor, I gave focused attention to training men. Why?
My experience, proved over and over, was strong men provided stability, strength of character, and models of service that motivated men, women, teenagers, and children to greater commitment. Strong, committed men gave our church leadership in evangelism, missions, and discipleship ministries. Women, of course, joined them in leading in all these areas. Again, this column isn’t about diminishing the role of women. It is about the pastoral discipline of building men into leaders and the impact this has on the total church membership.
This past weekend, it was my privilege to speak at a men’s retreat for a local church. It was an invigorating, positive reminder to me of the power of committed men in a church. These were regular guys – husbands, fathers, single guys; professionals, retired men, and blue collar workers; all ages and all incomes levels. Their fellowship, transparency, love for one another, and humility as men seeking God was refreshing. It made me want to be part of their church!
When you have a group of men with a passion for Jesus Christ and his church, powerful things happen! As a church planter, I asked God for 12 guys who would stand with me to build the new church. At our first men’s retreat, in our first year, I shared that prayer and emphasized how important the men were to our ultimate success. I didn’t realize there were exactly 12 of us on the retreat! One man, a very new believer, silently counted around the circle of men ending with him. Then he iinterrupted my teaching time and blurted out, “Hey, I’m number 12!”
His interjection caught us all of guard. Then we realized how powerful his observation was and what an answer to prayer God had provided. One reason our new church developed quickly to viability was these laymen who gave their time, energy, money, and expertise in various areas.
Dr. Jim Henry, pastor emeritus of First Baptist Church, Orlando, Florida is a model pastor in every regard. For more than 30 years, he met almost every Friday morning with a group of men for discipleship, leadership development, and spiritual encouragement. He has told me on several occasions he traces much of God’s blessing on his ministry to this disciplined commitment to build men into leaders who could expand the ministry of his church. That is a good testimony of the point I am trying to make in this column.
So, pastor, build men. Rather than complain about the lack of strong, committed male leaders in your church – go to work building some. This is not a quick-fix for your current church crisis. It is, instead, a long-term strategy for church health and growth.
<< Return to Archive