Measuring Success Missionally

Conventional wisdom says that it is impossible to manage what is not measured. And in the church, we've been told "God cares about numbers because numbers represent people and God cares about people."

So under the banner of accountability and stewardship, church leaders collect statistics to measure the effectiveness of ministry.

Eventually, we end up with thinking like this:

Many [churches] are unable to improve because they are unfocused or are pulled in many directions; focusing on critical activities is the key. Furthermore, no [church] wants to think of itself as average or below average. When a [church] knows measurably how it stands vis-à-vis its peers (especially those performing at levels of excellence), a natural sense of friendly competition where everyone can win is invoked.

A [church] that is falling far short of excellence will be motivated to improve by learning from consultants and other [churches] at the top of its peer group; the [church] will also be able to mark and show donors its quantitative progress toward measurable excellence. Meanwhile, top performing [churches] not only help other [churches] emulate their success, but they are also motivated to keep setting the standards of excellence even higher. Most importantly from the fundraising perspective, a [church] has an instant report card that it can show its donors (noting both areas of excellence and areas for improvement). Finally, if a networked [church] is to invest in a consulting team for help, it must be equipped with tools allowing it to challenge and motivate each [church] affiliate.

(Each occurrence of [church] replaces either "organization" or "non-profit.")

But the church is not a business. It is the body of Christ, a living temple of God's presence. And our evaluations need to reflect that reality. Yet not everything that counts can be counted.

It seems to me that there are several issues here:

• God's kingdom is not identical with the church, even though there is considerable overlap.
  
• Jesus Christ is the head of the church and builds his church in his own time and in his own way.
  
• While we have responsibilities regarding the advancement of God's kingdom, many of those responsibilities are difficult or impossible to define in quantifiable terms.
  
• 
  
  Measurement has several pitfalls
  
  • If the wrong things are measured, the focus gets diverted from what is truly important.
    
  • Over emphasis on the numbers can lead to the assumption we are totally responsible for increases and declines.
    
  • The most important factors cannot be reduced to a number in a spreadsheet.
    
  • While "numbers represent people," most statistical systems reduce people to just numbers.
    
• "Growth" easily becomes an idol with pressure to improve the numbers from the previous reporting period.
  

I suspect that collecting stories is more important than collecting statistics.

But if we were going to collect numbers, what numbers would be useful?

Doug Resler published a list of Missional Metrics written by Hugh Halter

• Number of new relationships formed where I know their names and they know mine.
  
• Number of people who have been uniquely blessed by me and my community.
  
• Number of people who invite me to be with their friends who don't follow Christ.
  
• Number of ways, my street, neighborhood, or community are more livable because of my influence.
  
• Number of Christians that are actively confronting their consumerism and making adjustments at the life level.
  
• Number of Christians that I ask or persuade NOT to go on mission with us.
  
• Number of incarnational communities that commit to form around benevolent action instead of just a bible study.
  
• How long people remain at our weekly gathering after the formalities are over.
  
• Number of community-based initiatives our people are supporting with their time or money.
  
• Number of young leaders we're intentionally developing.
  
• Number of people baptized for the first time.
  
• Number of Bibles purchased because someone asked for one.
  

These are helpful as pointers toward missional-incarnational living. But I wonder how well they avoid some of the problems I identified above.

We certainly want to evaluate certain aspects of missional-incarnational living:

Genuine relationships with people, not prospects

Missional-incarnational influence in the neighborhood

Discipleship that bites into real life

Healthy community (communitas)

Perhaps more helpful than numbers would be a rubric to help us evaluate each of these areas.

Here's a suggestion for Genuine Relationships from a personal perspective.

-1	I have neighbors, relatives or co-workers that I am "not talking to."
0	I get along with my neighbors, relatives and co-workers.
1	I know the names of my neighbors.
2	I know personal information about my co-workers such as birthday, anniversary, names of family members, hobbies.
3	I have bought a gift for a friend just because I saw something I thought they'd like (not for a specific occasion).
4	I have done a favor for someone anonymously.
5	I have a relationship with a non-relative with whom I spend time at least weakly.
6	I have a relationship with a person who does not attend my church, and we talk about spiritual things
7	I have a relationship with a person who is not a follower of Christ, and we talk about spiritual things.
8	I have a relationship with a person who is an atheist or agnostic and we talk about spiritual things.
9	People frequently ask me to pray for them.
10	I frequently offer to pray for people.
11	I frequently pray for people when we are together and they mention a need.
12	I have non-relatives in my home at least once a month (besides church groups).

This would be more helpful than a raw number. Similar rubrics could be developed for each of the values of missional-incarnational living. Rubrics could also be created for congregational evaluation.

I would be interested in any comments you might have to improve the suggested rubric and any suggestions you might have for other rubrics.

Pastor Rod

"Helping You Become the Person God Created You to Be"

This Is Not Your Father’s World

The hymn "This Is My Father's World" uses an antiquated view of the universe as a poetic device:

This is my Father's world,

And to my listening ears,

All nature sings and round me rings

The music of the spheres.

"The music of the spheres" comes from the idea that the earth was surrounded by rotating, transparent spheres upon which were fixed the sun, moon, stars and planets. And these spheres operated according to ratios similar to those found in reflected in the harmonic scale. No one still believes that the earth is the center of the universe or that the sun rises and sets every day, but we still use that language metaphorically.

The key is that we know this is figurative language. It doesn't shape our actual perception of the world.

Every fifth-grader knows that the geocentric view of the universe was replaced by a heliocentric view. Johannes Kepler then refined the sun-centered model by discovering that the orbits of the planets were ellipses rather than pure circles.

A similar transition has happened in the world of communication.

Marshall McLuhan popularized the phrase, "The medium is the message." The point is that the method we use to communicate is at least as important as the message we think we are transmitting. As new communication media appear, they also shape the culture.

M. Rex Miller has written an analysis of these changes from the perspective of the church. The Millennium Matrix suggests that the way we store and distribute information changes our worldviews.

At the time of Jesus, the culture was oral. This prevailed until the advent of the printing press which gave birth to a print culture. Television ushered in the broadcast culture. Finally, computers and the Internet produced a digital culture.

The book contains a detailed matrix of the various cultures and their characteristics. (A brief PDF version can be found here.) For example, in the oral culture truth is relational. The credibility of a message is based on the credibility of the messenger. In the print culture truth is based on principle. Logic and other tools of deduction are used to verify the message. In the broadcast culture truth becomes existential. The message is validated through experience. In the digital culture truth is contextual. Community tests and validates reality.

We'll return to some other aspects of The Millennium Matrix, but first I want to make clear that this is not a generational analysis.

In 1990, I attended a seminar sponsored by The Church Growth Institute called "How to Reach the Baby Boomer." It was based upon research described in the book Great Expectations: America and the Baby Boom Generation, by Landon Y. Jones. This seminar had a profound impact on the North American church.

The idea was that Baby Boomers had similar experiences and expectations. Formulas could be devised to reach them with the gospel and to get them involved in attending church. Demographics became an essential tool in church growth. The seeker-driven model was canonized. Consumerism became the focus of church programs and ministries.

This approach was so "successful" that church leaders tried to adapt it to the following generations. Various names were suggested (gen-x, busters, MTV generation, millennials) but none of these really caught on. Furthermore, those who followed the boomers were not as monolithic in their attitudes and experiences. Many of their characteristics were seen as reactions to the values of the boomers.

The church growth industry produced strategies, methods and programs to reach these generations. But something just didn't click. These approaches were not as effective.

Into this milieu came the emerging and missional movements. The resulting confusion has left pastors and denominational officials baffled to this day.

First, they tend to see these movements as identical. Even though there is considerable overlap between the emerging and missional movements, they are significantly different.

Second, they tend to view them as a generational phenomenon. While many of the people who make up these movements are younger, they are not simply expressions of age and shared experiences. In fact, many of the key figures in these movements are boomers.

We now live in a world where generational analyses are less and less useful.

It is important that The Millennium Matrix not be understood as a description of younger generations. It is rather a description of the world in which we all live. Yes, some older people still try to live in the print and broadcast cultures. But we all live in a digital age.

Let's look at the way the oral, print, broadcast and digital ages view leadership.

In the oral culture the leader is a steward. The steward acts as a caretaker for the entire household as a representative of the owner, fulfilling his intentions.

In the print culture the leader is a manager. The manager uses command and control, division of labor, and vertical integration to maximize efficiency and production. The assumption is that people need to be structured and tightly supervised to be productive.

In the broadcast culture the leader becomes the inspirational leader. The focus becomes releasing the potential of individuals.

In the digital culture the leader becomes a facilitator. Management takes on a less definable structure and acts more like a web of collaboration.

The church still seems to be enamored by the larger-than-life leader. (See Joel Osteen.) Yet the digital culture requires something very different:

Congregants in the emerging digital culture are hungry for leaders who are approachable, touchable, accessible, transparent, and real. They want to connect with someone who is unscripted, unrehearsed, and not "on." They want a real person who walks among them, not someone who periodically comes down from the mountain to deliver a prescription for life or platitudes of hype.

M. Rex Miller, The Millennium Matrix: Reclaiming the Past, Reframing the Future of the Church, pp. 154–155

The values of these cultures are also different. The oral culture valued reliability. The print culture valued productivity. The dominant value of the broadcast culture is quality. The highest value of the digital culture is creativity.

In the print and broadcast cultures, community is a technique.

Community becomes a strategy, a means to retain the numbers, instead of the end or the purpose from the very outset. That inversion seems to be an inherent trap that many churches focused on numerical growth succumb to.

M. Rex Miller, The Millennium Matrix: Reclaiming the Past, Reframing the Future of the Church, p. 260

But in the digital culture, community is the goal.

If what we offer is a weekly experience or presentation that does not raise the urge or provide the opportunity for connection resulting in community, then we might as well take down our label as church and proclaim our facility a house of religious entertainment.

M. Rex Miller, The Millennium Matrix: Reclaiming the Past, Reframing the Future of the Church, p. 182

Miller suggests that the church needs to embody eight values in the digital age:

• Agility
  
• Authenticity
  
• Cohesion and balance
  
• Resiliency and forgiveness
  
• Sustainability
  
• Open-endedness
  
• Accessibility
  
• Collaboration
  

This book does not provide the final word on the factors that shape our world and the context in which the North American church finds itself. But it does provide important insights and raises significant questions.

But remember, this is not our Church or our mission. It is God's. We are not charged with saving the world. It is not our job to devise the ideal strategy.

Our responsibility is to be aware of the world in which we live, to be open to the various ways in which God is working in that world, and to be willing to assume the role that God calls us to.

While this is not your father's world, it is your Father's world:

O let me ne'er forget

That though the wrong seems oft so strong,

God is the ruler yet.

Pastor Rod

"Helping You Become the Person God Created You to Be"

Evangelism Is Evil

Well, not evil. But there is something messed up about what is usually referred to as evangelism. Too often it feels like selling Amway.

The early Church did not have an evangelism program. It seems unlikely that early Christians were trained how to "share their faith." Yet "the Lord added to their number" regularly.

Most modern evangelism emphases tend to use guilt to motivate believers to memorize a presentation of "the gospel" and to confront friends, family and even strangers with a call to decision. The primary value is pragmatism. If it works (produces "converts"), then we use it. Marketing techniques are used to sell the gospel.

But why would we need to sell good news?

• If the news is truly good, won't people want to hear it?
  
• If the news is truly good, why would anyone need to be bullied to proclaim it?
  
• If the news is truly good, why does it feel like we are putting one over on our friends and family?
  

It seems obvious that most Christians don't really believe that the gospel is good news.

Of course, they think it is a "good deal."

They exchange most of the things that people think of as fun for a ticket to paradise when they die.

They go to church, try to be honest and give God some of their money, not because they really want to. They do it to get the big payoff.

And this is what most Christians are selling when they "do evangelism."

One of our problems is that we haven't found the gospel to be good news. And this needs to be addressed. But for now, I would like to focus on a different problem, the way we "do evangelism."

David Fitch has suggested that we give up on evangelism and focus on witness instead.

Here is a chart showing the distinction he makes between these two concepts.

Evangelism	Witness
Done by Individuals	Done by a Community
Hard work	Natural
Coercive	Patient
Strategic	Responsive
Argument	Ministry
Presented as a Message	Presented as a Community

He says, "Evangelism can be done without witness. Witness cannot be done without evangelism."

Yes we must proclaim the good news, but the most important part of that proclamation can only be done by a community that is living the gospel and embodying God's grace. And in this community the gospel must be experienced as truly good news.

Does this make sense? Do you find his concept of witness helpful?

Pastor Rod

"Helping You Become the Person God Created You to Be"

What Is Missional Church?

I see many people using the term missional in ways that have little or nothing to do with what I understand the word to mean.

For many it is little more than a synonym for hip or cool.

But I ran across this statement by Lesslie Newbigin in his Foolishness to the Greeks that seems to sum things up rather well:

The church is the bearer to all the nations of a gospel that announces the kingdom, the reign, and the sovereignty of God. It calls men and women to repent of their false loyalty to other powers, to become believers in the one true sovereignty, and so to become corporately a sign, instrument, and foretaste of that sovereignty of the one true and living God over all nature, all nations, and all human lives. It is not meant to call men and women out of the world into a safe religious enclave but to call them out in order to send them back as agents of God's kingship.

Lesslie Newbigin, Foolishness to the Greeks, p. 124

Missional primarily refers to the mission that the church has been given.

This is not a mission just to get people signed up for heaven. It is mission to proclaim the gospel and to live as agents of God's kingship in the world.

• We are not calling for people to participate in a business transaction with Jesus that will provide them with a voucher to enter heaven when they die.
  
• We are not calling for people to hire Jesus as a life coach so that they can "live their best life now."
  
• We are not calling for people to vote for Jesus as their deity of choice.
  

We are calling for people to submit to the one who is Lord of the Universe, to acknowledge his rightful place in their lives and in the world.

We are calling for them to actively participate in his kingdom as his will becomes fulfilled "on earth as it is in heaven."

Ironically, it is in giving up our "pursuit of happiness" and in submitting to his sovereignty that we find the fulfillment that seems so elusive:

Human beings find fulfillment not in the attempt to develop themselves, not in the effort to better their own condition, not in the untrammeled exercise of unlimited covetousness, but in the experience of mutual relatedness and responsibility in serving a shared goal.

Lesslie Newbigin, Foolishness to the Greeks, p. 122

Jesus said something like that

Whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will save it (Luke 9:24).

Pastor Rod

"Helping You Become the Person God Created You to Be"

Viral Networking

As you can see from the side bar, I've added a new syndication service.

Every time you load a page, it will give you different links to other blogs featuring posts about religion and spirituality. Each page load will also cause a link from Kingdom Come to appear on another blog that has subscribed to Blog Rush.

(If you would like to add this to your own blog, click here. It's free.)

I don't have control over the content that shows up, and I certainly don't endorse everything listed. But my readers are smart enough to know that without me having to tell them. Over time, I will be able to weed out certain types of posts.

This should provide you with access to interesting posts that you might not have found otherwise. It will also expose this blog to more potential readers. Let me know about your experiences, both positive and negative.

Pastor Rod

"Helping You Become the Person God Created You to Be"

Becoming Missional

Brian Russell has almost single-handedly given me hope that the Wesleyan Church has a chance to give up its addiction to church growth and business models for the church and that it might somehow figure out how to become a missional organization.

In this post, he lists 4 transitions that an existing congregation will need to make in order to become missional:

1. Reintroduce the apostolic narrative of Acts. "In many struggling churches, the people of God have lost the capacity to dream of what God might do in and through the community. One of the first steps in transitioning to a missional model is to help followers of Jesus Christ to begin to dream again dreams shaped by the Scriptures."

2. Move from surviving to living. "The goal of the Church of Jesus Christ is life in relationship to God." Surviving keeps us from living. Sacrificing for the future can also be an obstacle. A church must learn to live in the power of the kingdom in its current circumstances.

3. Move from consumerism to participation in the kingdom. "The people of God shift from consuming to becoming Kingdom-rooted entrepreneurs who seek to extend the influence and reign of God to the ends of the earth. Congregations shift from inviting people to have their needs met to unleashing people to change the world."

4. Shift from attractional methods to incarnational ministry. "The World no longer serves as a threat from which followers of Christ flee. Instead, the World becomes the venue for life and service in God's mission."

Sounds like he's pretty much got it right.

Pastor Rod

"Helping You Become the Person God Created You to Be"

Meta-Interpretation

Most Protestants believe that the Bible is the "last word" on matters of faith and doctrine. They also believe that there is a scientific way to determine what the objective meaning of the Bible is. This method is commonly known as the historical-critical method of biblical interpretation. The problem is that this method contains many unexamined assumptions.

(I have written about the false security that results from using this method.)

I discovered (HT: Brian Russell) an article that addresses the assumptions of this method and compares them to a "missional hermeneutic." Colin Yuckman calls his paper "An Ulterior Gospel." Here's part of his opening paragraph:

Every hermeneutic operates according to a critical rubric. Implied in each critical hermeneutic, however, is some sort of uncritical, fiduciary commitment. That is, in order to sustain a critical approach, one must remain committed to something else uncritically (one cannot be critical of everything, including one's critical operating principles, or else he will philosophically implode). Therefore, an uncritical commitment underlies every critical hermeneutic. The purpose of this paper is to put side by side the hermeneutic operative in much historical criticism (which has had particular privilege in Western, biblical interpretation) and missional hermeneutics, examining their respective commitments, critical and uncritical, and the trajectory on which these commitments have set them. The result will indicate the degree to which each model represents an adequate example of critical hermeneutics and, furthermore, how missional hermeneutics can adopt the benefits of historical criticism without contracting its ailments.

Translation: Every objective method is built upon several unproven assumptions that must simply be accepted "by faith." He intends to explain the assumptions of the traditional method of interpretation and compare them to the assumptions of a suggested missional approach to biblical interpretation.

If you are interested in this topic and are well-read, you will want to read the entire article. Otherwise, you can take a look at my summary and simplification.

Here are the assumptions made by the traditional method.

1. Independence. This method was conceived by the Church for the purposes of the Church. But now it considers itself free of any responsibility to the Church. It assumes that the scientific method is the ultimate determinant of truth.
   
2. Value-neutrality. Those who use this method assume that they are free from needing to make value judgments and commitments. They believe that it is an objective tool. On the contrary, it smuggles in its own value system.
   
3. Rationality. This method treats the Enlightenment view of reason as its universal dogma. It operates within a very specific plausibility structure.
   
4. Superior Viewpoint. This method assumes that modern practitioners are able to understand the text better than the people to whom it was written.
   
5. Special Rules. This method applies a skeptical attitude toward everything except itself. The rules are valid everywhere but "here."
   
6. Accidental Theology. This method assumes a particular view of reality, which requires a religious belief. But this religious belief is not acknowledged or examined. It operates behind the scenes without scrutiny.
   
7. Fundamentalist Attitude. This method has an intolerance toward other traditions that is just as narrow-minded as any religious fundamentalism.
   

Here are Yuckman's suggested guidelines for a missional hermeneutic.

1. Interpretation Organically Tied to Mission. The message of the Gospel requires faith on the part of the listeners to understand it. But it is only the message of the Gospel, accepted and understood, that can bring forth the needed faith. It is only as we are engaged in the mission of the kingdom that we can understand the content of the "mission statement" commonly known as the Bible.
   
2. Openly Theological. Missional interpretation is built upon a theological foundation. One aspect of missional theology is that the Church exists for the sake of those who do not belong to it.
   
3. Objective Credulity. The historical method depends upon a universal skepticism. It distrusts everything. Missional interpretation remains open to a new view of reality proclaimed by the text.
   
4. Biblical Plausibility Structure. Instead of accepting an Enlightenment plausibility structure, missional interpretation "lives" within a thoroughly biblical worldview.
   
5. Particularity and Universality. Missional interpretation sees a movement in the biblical narrative from the particular to the universal. Abraham is chosen by God so that he can bless all the nations of the world. "God's very identity is bound up in the intention to draw in the universal through active work in the particular."
   
6. Universal Intent. Michael Polanyi argues that all knowledge requires a personal commitment. There is no such thing as impersonal facts. A personal encounter with reality must result in a claim of universal application. This view sees personal commitment as the foundation of a kind of objectivity. Of course, our view of reality could be wrong. But we can discover the truth only by taking the risk of personal commitment and continued investigation. But this is not some kind of a personal truth. It must be a universal truth if it is truth at all.
   
7. Congregation as Interpreter. The only reliable context for understanding the Gospel is the believing community.
   

I admit that these guidelines are somewhat vague and difficult to comprehend. But I think that Yuckman is headed in the right direction. What do you think?

Pastor Rod

"Helping You Become the Person God Created You to Be"

Rules & Regulations

I have written before about the theological, cultural and exegetical mess of the membership requirements of The Wesleyan Church. I strongly believe that the whole idea of having such a list is wrong-headed. And its practical result is that it short-circuits the process of serious discipleship.

I read this post by my fellow-Wesleyan Ken Schenk. In the context of free academic dialogue I would like to respond to several points he makes. (Ken's words will be in red.)

The Wesleyan Church is not the universal church. It would be both silly and unwise to pretend like our identity is simply that of generic Christianity. Membership identity in a denomination is not a question of "What is a Christian?" or "What does the Bible require of a person to be a Christian?"

I agree that The Wesleyan Church is not the sum total of the universal church. But how does it differ from "generic Christianity"? Are we somehow superior? Are we the Jesuits of the holiness movement?

Ken argues that denominational membership should not be determined by what the Bible requires to be a follower of Jesus Christ. But here's what The Discipline says:

No person who loves the Lord Jesus Christ, and obeys the gospel of God our Savior, ought to be deprived of church membership (p. 27).

This seems to be in direct conflict with Ken's point. The Wesleyan Church seems to think that only those who keep the membership commitments are obeying "the gospel of God our Savior." Besides, what does it mean to obey the gospel? I don't follow the logic.

In a section describing the history of The Wesleyan Church, there is this statement:

The Covenant Membership Commitments found in this Discipline
(260-268) represent in revised form the General Rules which Wesley gave to
the members of the societies to enable them to test the sincerity of their
purpose and to guide them in holy living (p. 3).

In effect, The Wesleyan Church has taken rules that Wesley set up for discipleship groups and used them as membership rules for a denomination. These rules earned the Wesleys and their followers the pejorative of "Methodists."

Ken continues:

Most of those who frame membership requirements in this way reflect fundamental blind spots in the way they think. For one, the Bible did not set down its requirements with a view to 21st century America and the broader world. Its books addressed various contexts in the ancient world. To think our membership requirements would simply be a mirror of what the Bible required them reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the contexts of biblical instruction.

I'm not sure what membership commitments have been developed as a result of the special challenges of the 21st century. Wesley's rules for his class meetings were conceived in the 17th century, and The Wesleyan Church (as The Wesleyan Methodist Connection) was established in the 19th century. I think the critics of the membership requirements would welcome some reflection on what church membership means in the 21st century.

With respect to Ken (And I have a great deal of respect for him.) it strikes me as disingenuous to dismiss all appeals to the biblical text as naïve.

Ken argues:

Secondly, to make the identity of The Wesleyan Church into "every church"--as if we obviously would only require what God requires of every Christian, the lowest common denominator of all Christians--is to insist that the ears be the eyes be the feet be the nose.

Paul's metaphor about the body was addressing the differing roles of individuals. To apply this to whole denominations is to do violence to the point that he was making. Would we think that it is healthy to have a congregation made up just of elbows? Who wants an entire denomination made up of spleens?

Ken seems to think that the membership commitments alone give The Wesleyan Church a "personality." Unless we tack on special requirements for church membership, we will lose our identity.

Ken again employs elitist language, decrying "lowest common denominator" requirements. But how does this square with Acts 15:28–29?

It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.

This was a response to cultural differences between the Jewish believers and the Gentile believers. The Apostles (and the Holy Spirit!) seemed to be looking for minimal requirements. Christianity cut itself free from cultural ties very early.

Ken shifts to his second point:

Denominations do a service to the body of Christ when they do "their thing" well. The Amish do forgiveness well. The question we Wesleyans need to be asking as we look to our denominational identity and our membership requirements is "What do we do well?" Optimism of grace comes to mind, victory over sin as a doctrine, social compassion was mentioned in my small group at the conference.

How do membership commitments translate into "what we do well"? Is there any relationship between the Amish wearing long beards and eschewing electricity and their willingness to forgive a mass murderer? (Maybe we need to develop a "Wesleyan uniform" so that don't lose our identity.)

We certainly have victory over sin as a doctrine, but do we have it as a reality? Do our membership requirements encourage people to be vulnerable and transparent about their struggle with sin (as an essential step to obtaining victory over it) or do they institutionalize duplicity and dishonesty? Does refusing membership to anyone who has a glass of wine (at a wedding, for example) advance the cause of social compassion? Do smokers feel optimistic when they are excluded?

Peter's words seem appropriate here:

Why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear? (Acts 15:10).

I wonder how far Ken would be willing to apply his principle that every denomination has the right to establish whatever requirements that it wants. What if a denomination forbad the eating of pork? Or required circumcision?

And I have not even addressed the rank hypocrisy that we have tolerated within our ranks. We have turned materialism into a virtue as long as donors give to our churches and institutions. We encourage gluttony while denouncing the dangers of "social drinking." We make excuses for pastors and church officials who are mean and rude, because they are "effective."

I'd very much like to see The Wesleyan Church become a demonstration of the power of God's grace to overcome the grip of sin. But I don't see our current membership requirements as a means toward that end. Rather, I see them as a significant obstacle.

That's what I think. What do you think?

Pastor Rod

"Helping You Become the Person God Created You to Be"

Ministry by Hanging Out

If Jesus were a pastor, how would he spend his time?

How much time do you think he would spend . . .

writing job descriptions?

attending committee meetings?

overseeing the construction of a new building?

designing a direct-mail postcard?

raising money?

organizing programs?

writing sermons?

developing strategic plans?

He didn't seem to be very concerned about these things when he was training the very first members of the whole Church.

He spent a fair amount of his time speaking to gathered crowds. But most of his time appears to have been invested in just hanging out with his disciples. Here are just a few examples:

Leaving Nazareth, he went and lived in Capernaum (Matthew 4:13).

As Jesus was walking beside the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers (Matthew 4:18).

Jesus went throughout Galilee (Matthew 4:23).

Now when he saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him, and he began to teach them (Matthew 5:1–2).

When he came down from the mountainside, large crowds followed him (Matthew 8:1).

Then he got into the boat and his disciples followed him (Matthew 8:23).

While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew's house, many tax collectors and "sinners" came and ate with him and his disciples (Matthew 9:10).

That same day Jesus went out of the house and sat by the lake. Such large crowds gathered around him that he got into a boat and sat in it, while all the people stood on the shore (Matthew 13:1–2).

As Jesus and his disciples were leaving Jericho, a large crowd followed him (Matthew 20:29).

As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately (Matthew 24:3).

While Jesus was in Bethany in the home of a man known as Simon the Leper . . . (Matthew 26:6).

Once again Jesus went out beside the lake. A large crowd came to him, and he began to teach them (Mark 2:13).

One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain (Mark 2:23).

Jesus and his disciples went on to the villages around Caesarea Philippi. On the way he asked them, "Who do people say I am?" (Mark 8:27).

After Jesus had gone indoors, his disciples asked him privately . . . (Mark 9:28).

They came to Capernaum. When he was in the house, he asked them, "What were you arguing about on the road?" (Mark 9:33).

Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and across the Jordan (Mark 10:1).

When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this (Mark 10:10).

They were on their way up to Jerusalem, with Jesus leading the way (Mark 10:32).

As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter, James, John and Andrew asked him privately . . . (Mark 13:3).

He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom (Luke 4:16).

While Jesus was in one of the towns, a man came along . . . (Luke 5:12).

Now one of the Pharisees invited Jesus to have dinner with him, so he went to the Pharisee's house and reclined at the table (Luke 7:36).

Once when Jesus was praying in private and his disciples were with him, he asked them . . . (Luke 9:18).

As they were walking along the road, a man said to him . . . (Luke 9:57).

As Jesus and his disciples were on their way . . . (Luke 10:38).

One day Jesus was praying in a certain place. When he finished, one of his disciples said to him, "Lord, teach us to pray" (Luke 11:1).

On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus' mother was there, and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding (John 2:1–2).

Jacob's well was there, and Jesus, tired as he was from the journey, sat down by the well (John 4:6).

As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him . . . (John 9:1–2).

Now, some will argue that "just hanging out" is irresponsible and unfocused. But they miss the point. Properly understood hanging out is more like a spiritual discipline. Intentional hanging out is costly.

So what do you think?

Pastor Rod

"Helping You Become the Person God Created for You to Be"

A Plausible Gospel

The Apostle Paul says, "The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God" (1 Corinthians 1:18). "We preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles" (1 Corinthians 1:23).

According to the prevailing Greek plausibility structure, Jesus was a failure. According to the Jewish plausibility structure, Jesus was cursed by God and consequently a false Messiah.

But to those who have received the Good News, the defeated, humiliated, crucified Messiah is the power of God.

There are many who read 1 Corinthians 2:14 (The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.) as if the "man without the Spirit" cannot understand the grammar and syntax of plain language whenever the Gospel is communicated.

Rather, Paul is referring here to plausibility structures. (I'm not suggesting that he has this concept in mind or even was aware of the particular idea.) He is saying that according to the reigning belief system, the Gospel seems foolish and absurd:

• "Why would I want to trust in someone who couldn't even save himself?"
  
• "Everyone knows that the true Messiah could never have been crucified."
  

So what makes the Gospel plausible?

There are several factors involved, not the least of which is the Holy Spirit. But the primary reinforcement of the Gospel's plausibility is the community of believers.

It is only as we are truly "indwelling" the gospel story, only as we are so deeply involved in the life of the community which is shaped by this story that it becomes our real "plausibility structure," that we are able steadily and confidently to live in this attitude of eager hope. Almost everything in the "plausibility structure" which is the habitation of our society seems to contradict this Christian hope. Everything suggests that it is absurd to believe that the true authority over all things is represented in a crucified man. No amount of brilliant argument can make it sound reasonable to the inhabitants of the reigning plausibility structure. That is why I am suggesting that the only possible hermeneutic of the gospel is a congregation which believes it.

Lesslie Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society, p. 232

This sheds a whole new light on the idea that participation in a Christian community (church) is optional. Living the Gospel is virtually impossible alone. The Gospel not only needs community to create a hospitable plausibility structure, but it also demands to be expressed in community.

The reigning plausibility structure can only be effectively challenged by people who are fully integrated inhabitants of another.

Lesslie Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society, p. 228

Unfortunately, much of what is being proclaimed as the "Gospel" does not challenge the reigning plausibility structure or require a community to survive.

Pastor Rod

"Helping you become the person God created you to be"

Belief & Community

I've been exploring the concept of plausibility structures and how this insight can help us to think more clearly about the church's relationship with culture.

One important component of a plausibility structure is community:

A plausibility structure is not just a body of ideas but is necessarily embodied in an actual community. It cannot exist otherwise.

Lesslie Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society, p. 99.

Every plausibility structure grows out of a community. There is no such thing as a disembodied plausibility structure.

• Scientists have their own community with its plausibility structure.
  
• Public universities and colleges have a distinct community and accompanying plausibility structure.
  
• The inner city minority community has its own plausibility structure which includes the idea that the police and the courts cannot be trusted.
  

This has several implications for the Gospel.

• The alternative plausibility structure of the Gospel cannot survive outside the community of the Church. If a person attempts to be a "Lone Ranger" Christian, the reigning plausibility structure of society will eventually swallow up the competing beliefs of the Gospel.
  
  
• There is no neutral, benign environment for the claims of the Gospel. These audacious claims need the community of the saints to survive.
  
  
• One cannot ossify a particular community and its plausibility structure as a timeless reference for "biblical Christianity" (e.g. 16th-century Geneva).
  
  
• Furthermore, there is no "pure" Christian culture. Every genuine expression of Christianity is always in the context of a particular culture at a particular time.
  
  
• Any community that does not embody the plausibility structure of the Gospel is not truly a church.
  

This concept of plausibility structures does not mean that there is no absolute truth. It is an observation about how people understand, process and practice truth. The idea that truth can be apprehended and adopted in an objective and detached manner is as much a fiction as the idea that people buy cars for entirely non-emotional reasons.

We are really not in a secular society, but in a pagan society—not in a society which has no gods, but a society which has false gods.

Lesslie Newbigin, Interview

Here's the assessment of Dave Chang:

Reading Newbigin's works is dangerous business. It puts fire in the intellect, courage in the heart and motivation for action for the universal mission of Christ to a despairing world. A modern-day prophet has walked amongst us. We would do well to rally to his call to leave our privatized ghettos and ride forth to engage our pluralistic culture.

So what do you think? What are the implications for individual congregations? What are the implications for denominations? What are the implications for how we do theology?

Pastor Rod

"Helping you become the person God created you to be"

That’s Impossible!

"Self-evident truths" are a reflection of society rather than a reflection of reality.

This is the argument of Peter Berger.

Every society constructs a plausibility structure through which it processes "reality." It is impossible to process experiences or information except from within a plausibility structure. There is no objective reference point from which to understand "truth."

This is not to say that there is no such thing as objective truth. But it is to say that there is no neutral authority to which we can appeal to determine what that truth is. All evaluations of "truthiness" and "realness" can only be made from the context of a community.

My first exposure to this concept of plausibility structures was in the writing of Tim Keller. He focused on the negative aspects of this phenomenon and referred to the "implausibility structure" and "defeater beliefs."

Recently, I have learned more about this from reading Lesslie Newbigin's book, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society. He explains the key conclusion of Berger's model:

All use of reasoning depends on and is embodied in a tradition.
Lesslie Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society, p. 53.

This has many implications for followers of Jesus Christ. It explains why so many efforts to present the truth of the Gospel fall flat. If a person's "implausibility structure" (to use Keller's term) considers something impossible, no amount of evidence will persuade that person to change his or her mind. This is what Paul was talking about in 1 Corinthians 2:14:

The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

This doesn't mean that "the man without the Spirit" cannot understand the words that are used to communicate the truth about Jesus Christ. It means that "they are foolishness to him" because they are outside his plausibility structure.

The gospel gives rise to a new plausibility structure, a radically different vision of things from those that shape all human cultures apart from the gospel. The Church, therefore, as the bearer of the gospel, inhabits a plausibility structure which is at variance with, and which calls in question, those that govern all human cultures without exception.
Lesslie Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society, p. 9.

This has several implications for evangelism, apologetics, biblical interpretation, theology and preaching. I'll explore some of these topics in subsequent posts.

So what do you think? Is Berger's model a good fit? Does it explain things that other ways of looking at the world can't adequately address? What are some of the implications of this perspective?

Pastor Rod

"Helping You Become the Person God Created You to Be"

Monday, Monday

Many people find Monday to be a difficult day.

The Mamas and the Papas said, "Whenever Monday comes, you can find me cryin' all the time." Most people seem to hate Monday because it means the weekend is over and they have to go back to work (or school).

Some people have specific reasons to dislike Monday. According to Survey.com, IT workers hate Monday because they are swamped with support issues from the weekend. But pastors find Monday difficult for different reasons.

So what can be done to salvage Monday? Australian scientists say we should stop sleeping in on weekends. Someone at iPetitions is trying to get Mondays banned. Pastor Bob Hyatt responded to the aftermath of Sunday by not taking Monday as his day off.

The editors at DM Review suggest that IT departments implement self-service support to avoid the big backlog on Monday. Big Cheese Coaching suggests some positive thinking strategies to change Monday attitudes. Daryl Gibson posts Monday Morning Motivation every week for salespeople.

But I'm more interested in the weekly dynamics for pastors.

It seems that there are two main factors that cause such angst on Monday.

• Enormous importance is invested in Sunday.
  
• Enormous importance is invested in the pastor.
  

While these values are deeply ingrained in North American evangelical culture, I maintain that they are both misguided and dangerous.

Christianity is not about what happens on Sunday morning in a special building. This is one of the emphases of the missional movement. The Church is a community, not a crowd that meets once a week. What happens during the week is even more important than what happens on Sunday. The gathering on Sunday is more like a backstage pep talk than a big theatrical production. The congregation doesn't gather to be the Church, it assembles as people who have been acting as the Church all week.

The pastor is not the Church. The pastor is not a CEO. The pastor cannot be a lone ranger. Too many pastors feel pressure to build the Church. They are expected to measure up to a business model of success. Pastors feel that they cannot afford to be transparent because they must be more advanced spiritually than their congregations.

And let's be honest. It's not just that high expectations are placed upon the pastors. Pastors place these expectations on themselves. They like being in control. They like being the star. They like feeling indispensible.

Here's a news flash: None of us is indispensible.

The only person indispensible in the Church is Jesus.

He's the only one who can build the Church. He's the one who is responsible for the future of the Church. He's the only reliable role model.

Jesus said, "My yoke is easy, and my burden is light" (Matthew 11:30). But you would never believe that by watching most pastors. There doesn't seem to be anything easy or light about being a pastor. Nor does there seem to be anything easy or light about being a member of one of their churches.

Seems to me that's it's time to change that.

Pastor Rod

"Helping you become the person God created you to be"

Web 2.0 & Wiki-Sermon

Great ideas are not as rare as you might think. Most people are filled with them.

But a great idea that is never implemented is worthless. And a great idea that is implemented weakly is of little value.

I had a reasonably good idea of harnessing the power of Web 2.0 to enhance the development of sermons based on the lectionary readings.

(There are several different ideas about what is at the heart of Web 2.0. I believe that the key component is that the users are also the developers. I think Wikipedia is an excellent example of the power of Web 2.0.)

But here's the problem. My implementation of this idea has been clunky, at best.

So let's use the Web 2.0 paradigm to refine (or completely redo) the way this concept is implemented. In other words, let's work together to decide how to make this work for all of us.

Let me explain some of my thinking behind Wiki-Sermon.

• I am not trying to replace exegetical commentaries. There are many resources already available to help in understanding the basic meaning of the text.
  
  
• I am not looking for a shortcut to getting at the "meaning" of a text. The Bible is not a mathematical formula to be computed so that we can arrive at the "correct answer." Much of the value of exegesis is in struggling with the text itself. It is no more possible to understand the meaning of a passage without some hard work than it is to learn a foreign language without focused concentration.
  
  
• I am looking for a way that each person's unique experience can contribute to the collective understanding of the text. The Bible speaks to us as people, not computers.
  
  
• I am not trying to trick people into doing my work for me. If this is a one-sided project (where the readers do all the work and I reap all the benefit), then it will never work. Everyone must benefit.
  
  
• I am looking for creative ways to connect the message of the text with the culture we live in. It is of little value to keep repeating the same tired clichés. Even profound truth can become boring through familiarity.
  
  
• I am looking for resources that can be used to "preach to the imagination:" stories, books, movies, songs, art, etc.
  
  
• I want this to enhance the preaching experience for listeners. My idea is that someone who participates in the development process will find listening to a message from the lectionary readings much more engaging. A good analogy is classic music. Those who appreciate the nuances of a Bach composition will find a concert more enjoyable. Those who understand what's going on in jazz have a much richer experience than casual listeners.
  
  
• I want to change the dynamic of preaching from conveying information to creating an opportunity for people to know God more intimately. Christians generally have plenty of information. They don't need to know more facts. They need to know God better.
  
  
• I want build in a "feedback loop" before the sermon is given. It is good to find out what people think and feel after hearing a sermon. (Communication is not a precise process.) But it is even better to get "feedback" in advance.
  
  
• I want to change the sermon from the product of an individual to a product of a community. The sermon is too important to leave its development to a single person.
  
  

So I need your help.

• Do you see value in this idea?
  
• Do you agree with my assumptions?
  
• Do you want to add a few of your own?
  
• Do you have some ideas how the process and result might be more useful for you?
  
• What suggestions do you have for how to implement the idea?
  

Thanks for taking the time to think about this.

Pastor Rod

"Helping you become the person God created you to be"

Wiki Comes to Church

I was reading Tom Peter's blog and ran across a link to Wikinomics. I asked myself, "How can this be applied to the church?" Then I thought about some of the things that David Fitch had said about interpretation being done in the context of a community.

Why not use a "wiki" approach to sermon development?

So I decided to do just that. I started a new blog Wiki-Sermon where I will post the upcoming lectionary readings. Readers can make observations and suggest possibilities for the shape of the sermon.

I am especially interested in any pop cultural connections to the themes of the Scriptures. If there is a link with a book or a movie, that would be especially helpful. Readers can add their own comments or respond to comments by someone else.

This is not just a research tool for me to use in preparing the sermon. I want to use this to shape the direction of the sermon.

My intention is that this will be specifically for use by the Wesleyan Community Church. But since we are using the standard lectionary readings (with a few adjustments here and there), the information can also be used by others following the lectionary.

The benefit of this depends completely upon the degree of participation. If this sounds interesting, why not join in and see how it develops?

I can't promise to use everything that is submitted. But I will use all the comments as background for the sermon I finally prepare.

Pastor Rod

"Helping You Become the Person God Created You to Be"

Drawing Lines

My denomination has membership commitments that are (at best) anachronistic. They draw a clear “line in the sand” defining who can and who cannot become members of any local church.

For the moment, I want to set aside the fact that this line is drawn in the wrong place.

I want to address, instead, the whole rational of lifestyle membership regulations. There is biblical warrant for a very limited number of lifestyle “concessions” (Acts 15:19–21). But they are clearly concessions, and there are only four of them.

Trying to define what serious discipleship looks like creates all sorts of cultural problems. These definitions, by nature, lag behind the rapidly-changing culture. By the time they are written, they are out of date.

They also tend to emphasize things that are not important and to overlook things that are important.

Leslie Newbigin points out the well-documented errors that western missionaries have made in this regard:

The place where the virus of legalism gets into the work of evangelism is the place where the evangelist presumes that he or she knows in advance and can tell the potential convert what the ethic content of conversion will be.
Leslie Newbigin, The Open Secret, p. 136

Much as the act of measurement irrevocably alters a quantum event, the attempt to delineate rules, or even guidelines, imposes a time-bound and culture-bound reduction on the gospel.

We can see this clearly with groups like the Amish. But most evangelical Christians are different from them only in the degree to which their cultural regulations lag behind the current time.

But the real danger is much more serious. A detailed list of lifestyle regulations inevitably turns Christians into Pharisees. They had a list of activities which were forbidden on the Sabbath; we have a list of activities, associations and occupations that are forbidden for membership.

With such a list, we tend to focus on the periphery, thinking about what is allowed and what is forbidden. Our focus should not be on the periphery, but on the center, Jesus Christ. Again Newbigin has a good word:

When the light shines freely one cannot draw a line and say, “Here light stops and darkness begins.” But one can say and must say, “There is where the light shines; go toward it and your path will be clear; turn your back on it and you will go into deeper darkness.”
Leslie Newbigin, The Open Secret, p. 175

These kinds of regulations actually discourage serious discipleship. Paul addressed this in Colossians 2:21, 23:

“Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!” Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.

They seem reasonable, but they have no real value in producing holiness.

These kinds of rules cause harm as Dallas Willard warns:

If in spiritual formation you focus on action alone, you will fall into the
deadliest of legalisms and you will kill other souls and die yourself. You will get a social conformity…. To focus on action alone is to fall into pharisaism of the worst kind and to kill the soul.
Dallas Willard, The Great Omission

But this is not an issue of balancing freedom with obligation. This is not an issue of how much we should accommodate to the host culture.

Paul was not sliding down some slippery slope. He was not “becoming liberal.” In the very next verse, he continues:

Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things…. Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry…. You must rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips. Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator…. Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with
compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity…. And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.
Colossians 3:1–2, 5, 8–10, 12–14, 17

When we give people a list of what they should do and what they should not do, we change the dynamic of discipleship. This does not mean that discipleship has no demands. It means just the opposite. Discipleship demands much more than simply keeping a list of rules.

Michael Frost could be talking about a rule-based approach to holiness:

This version of Christianity is a façade, a method for practitioners to appear like fine, upstanding citizens without allowing the claims and teachings of Jesus to bite hard in everyday life.
Michael Frost, Exiles

In its essence, discipleship is about developing character from the inside out. It is about the kind of people we are becoming.

Spiritual formation for the Christian is a Spirit-driven process of forming the inner world of the human self –our “spiritual” side—in such a way that it becomes like the inner being of Christ himself. In the degree to which such a spiritual transformation to inner Christlikeness is successful, the outer life of the individual will become a natural expression or outflow of the character and teachings of Jesus.
Dallas Willard, Living A Transformed Life Adequate To Our Calling

Jesus said that anyone who wants to be a disciple must deny himself, take up his cross daily and follow the example of Jesus. He said that true disciples are becoming the kind of people who naturally turn the other cheek. They are people who bless those who curse them.

Paul said that true disciples can be easily identified by their love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

But I’ve shifted this discussion from membership to discipleship. This is a shift that is often made unconsciously when arguing the question of membership commitments. An argument is made for what a mature Christian should look like (from the point of view of the person making the argument) and that is translated into membership requirements.

But is it reasonable to require of church members the characteristics of Christian maturity?

Do we allow only healthy people into hospitals? Do we enroll in college only students who already have a command of the subject for which they desire a degree? Do we leave our children at an orphanage until they can take on adult responsibilities in our families?

But somehow we think it is reasonable to expect maturity at birth when it comes to the spiritual life.

Some would argue that we shouldn’t just let anyone become a member of our churches. I agree. We should limit membership to baptized believers who are serious about following Christ.

There is no correlation between the nonconsumption of alcohol and the desire to be a serious disciple of Jesus. The same could be said regarding smoking.

Anytime an organization draws a line of required behaviors, those behaviors tend to clump on either side of the line. As a church, we shouldn’t be calling people to cross our lines. We should be calling people to become more and more like Jesus.

The early church didn’t have detailed membership requirements. Peter even had to revise his presumed requirements on the spot in the home of Cornelius (Acts 10:47). And while the early church had a few problems, there was a vitality and commitment that we rarely see today.

This does not mean that leaders should never label certain actions as sin. The truth is that we need more of this. But our membership rolls will become very short indeed if we only accept those who are free from any sin.

There are many arguments for supporting the status quo.

• We should submit to the authority of the church.
• We should respect the tradition from which we’ve developed.
• We should honor our spiritual “fathers.”
• We should limit our freedom so as not to offend the “weaker brothers.”

Quietly accepting the status quo is the easy position to take. But is it the right position to take?

A good friend once asked me, “Do you really want to be known as the person who made drinking permissible in the Wesleyan Church?” (His point was that we only get one legacy and that we need to choose it wisely.)

Framed in this way, the obvious answer is “No; I’d rather be known for something more important.”

But what about being known for calling the Wesleyan Church to be serious about true discipleship, about a compelling and powerful holiness that is a true work of God?

I think I could reply with a “Yes” to that.

Pastor Rod

“Helping You Become the Person God Created You to Be”