August 30, 2010
Mono-Ethnic Ministries and Multi-Ethnic Churches (Part 2)
Evangelize mono-ethnic groups, but plant multi-ethnic churches.
Tom Steers, founder and co-director of Asian American Ministries for The Navigators, recently wrote a guest opinion column for Christianity Today (July 7, 2010). The column is entitled, "Needed: More Monocultural Ministries". Mark DeYmaz, founding pastor of Mosaic Church of Central Arkansas, and a leader in the multi-ethnic church movement, has written a response to Steers' article. Read part one of DeYmaz's rebuttal.
In arguing for more monocultural ministries, Tom Steers reveals the all-too-common misunderstanding of generations past committed to the Homogeneous Unit Principle as a pragmatic tool for local church planting, growth, and development. It is long-past time to recognize, however, that there is a significant difference between the need for evangelism focused on specific ethnic groups (more is needed, I agree) and the New Testament’s expectation that following salvation believers are to walk, work, and worship God together as one - in and through the local church - for the sake of the gospel.
Monocultural evangelism then? Absolutely. More monocultural churches? I say, absolutely not. What we really need is more multiethnic churches that understand and practice the HUP in their own context by providing for evangelism and basic discipleship of first generation internationals for precisely the reason the Steers suggests.
Steers believes monocultural churches avoid the problem of unrealistically expecting that “each of these groups assimilate to one another or to multiethnic congregations—at the same time they are trying to assimilate into U.S. culture.” This problem, by the way, is not always rooted in one’s ethnicity; personality is also a factor that plays a role in how soon or slowly 1.0s (a common name for first-generation immigrants) desire to engage the greater body. In fact I address this very thing in my latest book, Ethnic Blends: Mixing Diversity Into Your Local Church. In promoting a model I call, “Graduated Inclusion,” multi-ethnic churches can and will apply the HUP strictly for the purpose of evangelism and initial discipleship while simultaneously providing for the needs of 1.5s, 2.0s and beyond, all from within one local church.
“And it's not just new immigrants who have unique and particular needs that the gospel can address in culturally specific ways," Steers writes. "Most often the 1.5, second, or third generation offspring desire high ethnic identity ministries.”
Really?
Again, the author here confuses evangelism with church development. For when it comes to the latter, it has been my experience in discussing this very thing with ethnic pastors that virtually all agree (despite what they and their congregants might otherwise desire): 1.0s will have “two feet in” the ethnic-specific church; 2.0s will likely have “one foot in and one foot out;” and third generation offspring will in most cases have “two feet out.”
Of course, planting a homogeneous church is something we more readily understand — and something that is much easier to do. But let us not confuse that which is easier or seemingly more “effective” by human standards or measurements (i.e., “How big is your church?”). Christ expects us to align ourselves, and our churches, with his agenda; anything less is unacceptable.
Steers goes not to write, “I believe our approach to ministry has to be in and through a given culture.” This incarnational approach to ministry, he suggests, is a “pragmatic model of ministry” with “biblical precedent.” Such a strategy allows the Good News to “take root properly,” allowing it to flow naturally to family and friends within that culture.” And, indeed, I agree it does when the “ministry” we are talking about is evangelism/discipleship. But not when it comes to establishing a local church. In fact, it was from the diverse environment of Antioch, as those being saved quite naturally became concerned for family and friends, that the first missionaries were sent forth intentionally (Acts 13:1ff.). This is something that did not happen in Jerusalem.
So as Paul, Barnabas, and later others, were sent from the diverse congregation at Antioch, they not only went forth to evangelize Jews and Gentiles living in other places (including, quite likely, the family and friends of those who had been saved at Antioch), but to establish Antioch-like churches in other cities and towns as a result; churches that were in fact multi-ethnic and, thus, truly fulfill the Great Commission and expectation of Jesus, so that the world would know God's love and believe.
In conclusion, the author writes. “Every person and every group has dignity and validity no matter their ethnic, social, political, or economic roots—and whether they gather mono or multi.” On this point, I wholeheartedly agree, as I do with his final statement, “And, in the end, every people group will be represented in heaven (Rev. 5:9–10).”
However, it is important that we consider just one more thing.
Jesus taught us to pray, ‘Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven,” (Matthew 6:10). But if the kingdom of heaven (then and now) is not segregated along ethnic or economic lines, we must ask ourselves the question, Why on earth is the church?
Mark DeYmaz will be speaking at the Multi-Ethnic Church Conference on November 2-3 in San Diego. Learn more about the event at www.mosaix.info.
Posted by UrL Scaramanga at August 30, 2010 | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 26, 2010
Ur Video: Dever & Wallis on Justice and the Gospel (Part 4)
What's the relationship between justice and justification?
Being justified by Christ leads a person to engage acts of justice. And the Christian witness of justice leads more people to be justified. But Wallis and Dever continue to disagree about whether justice is an "implication" of the gospel or "integral" to it.
Posted by UrL Scaramanga at August 26, 2010 | Comments (8) | TrackBack
August 25, 2010
Mono-Ethnic Ministries and Multi-Ethnic Churches (Part 1)
A multi-ethnic church leader responds to the call for more homogeneous churches.
Tom Steers, founder and co-director of Asian American Ministries for The Navigators, recently wrote a guest opinion column for Christianity Today (July 7, 2010). The column is entitled, "Needed: More Monocultural Ministries".
In the opinion piece ("not necessarily representing the opinion of the publication," as CT makes clear in the footer), Steers argues that a multicultural society demands more monocultural ministries. In so doing, however, he does not clearly state what he means by use of the term, “ministry.” Consequently, I believe he a) confuses evangelism with local church development, b) wrongly exegetes Scripture in attempting to support his claim, and otherwise c) speaks from assumption in stating what advocates of the multi-ethnic church truly believe. With this in mind, the following blog entry respectfully, but critically, challenges Steers' thinking.
Steers writes:
“Some argue that since we are an increasingly multicultural society, our churches should become more multicultural. There is a certain logic to that. As long as there are people who want to be culturally and socially multicultural, or multiethnic, there also must be structures for them. Such ministries are crucial for healing America's racial and ethnic wounds. They potentially model the unbiased oneness that Jesus prayed for in John 17.”
Theologically informed “advocates” of the multi-ethnic church however (at least, none that I know) are not suggesting, as the author states, “since we are an increasingly multicultural society, (that) our churches should become more multicultural.”
Nor are Bible-centered proponents of the multi-ethnic church interested in the “logic” of “providing structures” for “people who want to be culturally and socially multicultural, or multiethnic,” as if guided by sociology, political correctness, or changing demographics. Furthermore, while we certainly celebrate any gains that are made through “such ministries” in “healing America's racial and ethnic wounds,” informed advocates of the multi-ethnic church understand that so-called racial-reconciliation is only a by-product of two a priori works of reconciliation, namely a) reconciling men and women to God through faith in Jesus Christ, and b) reconciling local congregations to the principles and practices of first century churches such as existed at Antioch and Ephesus, for example. Yes in these churches, men and women of diverse ethnic and economic backgrounds proclaimed God’s love for all people by practicing love for one another beyond the distinctions of this world that so often and otherwise divide.
The author continues:
“But despite what some advocates imply, multicultural ministry is not more biblical, let alone always most effective. I think our multicultural situation demands that we also employ what I call a monocultural approach.”
The question that is important here is: “monocultural approach” to what? I assume the author means “ministries,” as he alludes in the title of his submission. But this is too broad a term for an otherwise precise, necessary, discussion and exegesis of Scripture. Again, no one I know advocating the multi-ethnic church today is saying multicultural ministry is more biblical than a monocultural approach. What we are saying is that nowhere in the New Testament will you find the apostle Paul or anyone else encouraging us to plant or develop churches focused on specific people groups!To suggest that the New Testament teaches otherwise is to eisegete, not exegete, the text.
For example, Steers later writes: “In Scripture we have examples of both monocultural ministry (Jesus) and multicultural ministry (some churches founded by Paul)."
But let us be clear: in Scripture we do not have examples of Jesus planting/developing homogeneous churches, only of him doing monocultural evangelism and initial discipleship. And likewise not just some, but all of the churches founded by Paul were multicultural (multi-ethnic). On this point, I invite readers to carefully examine Paul’s travels in Acts, as well as his letters to the churches contained in the New Testament. In so doing, you will find that in every case Paul is concerned with both Jews and Gentiles not only coming to know Christ, but coming together as one in him via the local church.
For too long, unchecked statements that assume there were Jewish churches and there were Gentile churches (as Steers alludes) have served to justify the church growth movement and more specifically, the Homogeneous Unit Principle (HUP) as it applies to church planting, growth and development. But the New Testament does not support this argument. As I have already stated, Jesus’ “ministry” was not focused on church planting, growth or development; indeed, the Church is something he only foresees (Matthew 16:18), and something not established until Acts 2.
What Jesus was focused on in preparation for the Church was a) pre-evangelism (via acts of healing, the feeding of the 5,000, etc.), b) evangelism, and c) the initial discipleship of a single people group (namely, Jewish disciples). Yet in the end, having completed their training, he commands his disciples to go beyond the Jewish nation, as every student of Scripture knows (Matthew 28:19, 20; Acts 1:8). Interestingly, they do not; and it is only after persecution of the (homogeneous) church they established in Jerusalem that the Gospel and local churches thereafter transcend ethnocentrism. It is then that the multi-ethnic, mega, missional, church at Antioch arises to become the model and standard for local church planting, growth and development for the rest of the New Testament. Technically speaking, then, Jesus did not plant a church; only the seeds (evangelism and discipleship) from which the Church (and local churches, too) would one day spring forth.
Paul, too, promotes targeted evangelism (1 Corinthians 9:20-23). But as I have tried to make clear, a ministry of pre-evangelism/evangelism/discipleship, and a ministry of local church planting/growth/development are two different ministries altogether.
Part 2 of Mark DeYmaz's response to Tom Steers article will be posted soon.
Mark DeYmaz will be speaking at the Multi-Ethnic Church Conference on November 2-3 in San Diego. Learn more about the event at www.mosaix.info.
Posted by UrL Scaramanga at August 25, 2010 | Comments (2) | TrackBack
August 23, 2010
Justice: Sep/Oct Issue of "Catalyst Leadership" is Live!
Articles, videos, and resources on the intersection of justice and evangelism.
The latest issue of our digital magazine, Catalyst Leadership, is now live. We going deeper into the controversy and questions surrounding justice and evangelism. It's a strong line-up of contributors from both Leadership journal and recent Catalyst conferences: Andy Stanley, Jim Wallis, Mark Dever, Bethany Hoang, Naomi Zacharias, Jim Belcher, Skye Jethani, Charles Colson, Shane Claiborne, and more.
Get your free subscription to Catalyst Leadership and join the conversation.
Posted by UrL Scaramanga at August 23, 2010 | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 20, 2010
I Need to Cover My Mouth when I Preach
There’s a difference between speaking about God and speaking for him.
I love and hate the book of Job. I love it because it poses challenging pastoral questions—like being tested by God or God’s tolerance for the devil—but I hate it because it challenges my understanding of what it means to have a pastoral spirit.
Most know Job’s story. Satan approaches God for permission to test Job. God says, “Fine, just don’t kill him.” Job loses everything, including his wealth and his children. His wife tells him to curse God and die. And then, as if that weren’t enough, he gets this weird skin disease and tries to scrape it off with broken pieces of a clay jar.
It is in this moment that his friends decide to pay him a visit. They spend a week with him, just being present with him, mourning with him, and providing for his needs—a great example of pastoral care. But after the week has passed, the real reason for their visit becomes apparent. They are there to help Job discover what he did wrong.
The audience knows Job hasn’t done anything wrong. God actually considers Job to be blameless, righteous. But in chapter after chapter, Job goes back and forth with Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar. He adamantly argues that he did nothing wrong. And while Job’s anger is expressed in truly poetic ways, he never curses God. Job’s commitment to God does not change.
Then in chapter 32 a young, overly zealous Elihu enters the story and takes on the mantel to verbally assault Job into submission. He uses phrases like “I want to vindicate you” and “I will teach you wisdom.” He accuses Job of being more interested in making a profit than pleasing God, among other things. It is only after Elihu stops talking that God finally says something—and what God says breaks my heart.
God pushes back not on Job, but on the four accusers. God berates them with question after question, challenging their notions of who God is : a god that governs over transactions or a god defined by God’s relationship with Israel. As God speaks from the storm, I get the sense that the Book of Job isn’t about Job at all. It is about those who attempt to speak on God’s behalf.
Job’s response is beautiful. He says “I am unworthy. How can I reply to you? I put my hand over my mouth.”
But to the four that spoke for God, God says, “I am angry with you... because you have not spoken of me what is right, as my servant Job has...” And the story ends with Job being restored.
There is a real danger in pastoral work. The temptation to push past humility in our confession of what God is doing pulls at us all, and we need to resist this temptation. Often we are called upon to make sense of what is going on around us, and far too often we can’t. This leaves us scrambling with uncertainty at best; and at worst, it puts us in a position to substitute our own authority for God’s. But God speaks for Godself. It is not our place to judge or to condemn. It is our place to love. Because most of the time we don’t know what’s really going on. And when we attempt to place judgment on someone, or explain why God has allowed something to happen, we end up looking foolish. Who knows the mind of God? Not Job, not his friends, not his wife, and certainly not us.
But shouldn’t we preach the truth above all other things? Shouldn’t we justify our positions and stances on cultural issues that threaten our friends, families, and communities? Of course. But if at any point we presume to think that those we interact with are not created, and therefore loved, by God, then we fall into the danger of treating people as a means to an end, rather than an end unto themselves.
We need to be careful not to hold on to our towers of superiority or criticize people we think are wrong, or are sinning, or are corrupting our society. We cannot continue to ignore God’s warning, “Who are you to obscure my plans with words without knowledge?” And we must listen to Jesus, “Let the person without sin throw the first stone.”
Simply put, we need to be more loving. We need to be more humble. We need to show more self control. Or put differently, I need to more loving, I need to be more humble, I need to show more self control. Because as I heard the voice of Elihu speak, I thought it could be my own—a young man speaking out of turn, passionately compelled by the sound of his own voice, and still in need of more grace than he is willing to admit. Maybe that’s just the voice of my generation, too intoxicated with our achievements or our potential. Either way, I need to take some more time and listen to Job. And hopefully, I’ll cover my mouth before I preach.
Posted by UrL Scaramanga at August 20, 2010 | Comments (17) | TrackBack
August 18, 2010
Ur Video: Brian McLaren on Being a Heretic
Is he a universalist and does he still affirm the classic creeds of the faith?
At the Q Conference last April in Chicago, Scot McKnight interviewed Brian McLaren about the "provocative ambiguity" in many of his writings. Does McLaren still affirm the classic creeds of the church as he stated in A Generous Orthodoxy, and why doesn't he plainly state whether or not he is a universalist?
Check out the video from the conference. Did McLaren put the questions about his beliefs to rest?
Q | Conversations on Being a Heretic from Q Ideas on Vimeo.
Posted by UrL Scaramanga at August 18, 2010 | Comments (40) | TrackBack
August 16, 2010
Ur Video: Dever & Wallis on Justice and the Gospel (Part 3)
If the gospel is not verbally proclaimed are we doing gospel work?
Is feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, healing the sick, and welcoming the stranger "gospel ministry"? In part 3 of the conversation about justice and the gospel, Mark Dever and Jim Wallis disagree about what can and cannot be legitimately called a gospel ministry. What do you think? If the gospel is not verbally proclaimed are we doing gospel work?
Pick up the Summer issue of Leadership Journal to read more from Dever, Wallis, and others on the intersection of justice and evangelism.
Posted by UrL Scaramanga at August 16, 2010 | Comments (9) | TrackBack
August 13, 2010
Anne Rice's Renunciation
How do we respond when someone quits the faith?
Best selling author Anne Rice has quit Christianity. She is not quitting on Jesus Christ or the Bible, she says, but she is quitting organized Christianity.
Ms. Rice announced her quit-decision not through a resignation letter (where would one send it?) but through her website and TV interviews.
Anne Rice’s decision to go public with her decision is not the only way people quit Christianity. Some do it quietly, gradually dropping out of the programmatic activities of religious institutions and out of personal contact with people whose devotion to the faith seems solid. One day someone notices an empty seat in the sanctuary and says, “I haven’t seen Bob (or Jennifer) around for a while. Wonder what’s happened to him (or her)?”
Sometimes people quit the faith entirely.
The first time I heard of anyone quitting Christianity I was incredulous. The quitter was a boy in my prep school class, and as long as I had known him he’d been the model Christian in our student body. He arose every morning at 5 a.m. for his quiet time. He knew the Bible from beginning to end. He was the first to call for prayer meetings in the dorm about this issue or that. And he was always active in chapel leadership.
Then on the first day of my senior year, we had a class meeting. The model Christian made an announcement. “This summer I gave up my faith in Jesus,” he said. And he formally disassociated himself from all Christian activity on campus.
Since then I have seen more than a few men and woman do the Anne Rice thing.
A few quit when they became involved with someone outside their marriage.
Some quit because they said that Christianity was intellectually untenable. Then there were those who quit because they said they saw something in church life that repelled them: congregational squabbles that left blood on the carpet; leaders who lived a persistently double life; an atmosphere of self-assured “Phariseeism” that licensed antipathy and exclusion toward various groups in our world.
If you’re a parent, like me, you do have to sympathize with Ms. Rice when she asks why she should put money into the offering plate of a church that uses part of her gift to support political action that is incompatible with her gay son’s welfare.
I remember one person who had the courage to come to me and simply say, “I’m leaving Christianity because it doesn’t work for me during the week. It only works on church property.” If I’d been older, more mature, I think I could have helped him.
Among my most vivid memories of people quitting Christianity was a youngish husband/father, a doctoral student who had been—some said—“marvelously converted” at the age of 18 or 19 out of a drug culture lifestyle. Then for ten plus years he lived a highly admired and respected Christian life. Many looked to him, young as he was, as a lay pastor. His somewhat quiet, modest persona was unthreatening, even inviting. So lots of people found him approachable and very insightful as they tried to sort out personal issues of one type or another.
Then one day his wife called to say that her husband had left the house that morning and said on his way out, “I’m not coming back.” And he didn’t. He walked away from his marriage, his family, his friends, and his Christianity. He refused all attempts to get together and talk things through. Whether or not he quit on Jesus, I honestly don’t know. I should add that there were no obvious mental problems, no signs of external stress, no unusual patterns of unrest in home or church relationships.
I will irritate some when I state my diagnosis of his situation: his experience of conversion (and there is an experience) wore out by not being renewed or deepened. It was only a conversion with a twelve-year-old date on it.
It was this man’s sudden abandonment of everything that seemed life-defining to him that caused me to begin asking hard questions about the traditional view that I had maintained about Christian conversion. Was it possible, I asked myself, for a person to establish a serious commitment to follow Jesus yet cancel that commitment somewhere along the way? Is there an experience that might be called deconversion? Is this Judas’s experience and nearly Simon Peter’s?
I wasn’t satisfied with old explanations for this man’s sudden quitting behavior: “Well, he really wasn’t sincere . . . he wasn’t genuinely repentant . . . the fruits of faith weren’t there. He was a tare that we thought was wheat.” In the case of the man I’ve described, I had reason to believe that, at the time he committed to Jesus, he was sincere and he was repentant. If I ever saw the fruits of faith in anyone at the time, they were in him.
As I struggled to understand what had happened, I came to the conclusion that there is an experiential sense in which commitment to Jesus remains vigorous only if one re-believes and renews his/her conversion every day. As Paul writes, “Continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling,” and as my friend the alcoholic says, “It’s one day at a time, baby.” To my professional theologian friends: have fun with what I’ve said.
In my own journey with Jesus Christ, I have been caused to adopt a daily discipline which I most often carry out while standing in my shower each morning. There, assisted by a personal liturgy pasted to the shower wall, I reaffirm or renew my commitment to Jesus on a one-day-at-a-time basis . . . not because I’m uncertain but because I want to sharpen the edge of my intention to follow Jesus.
The shower is an appropriate place to do this, actually, since it’s reminiscent of a baptism (just kidding, mostly). Seriously, on the other hand, in these latter years of my life, my daily renewal of conversion has been an important foundational function in my ever-growing loyalty to Jesus.
Now to repeat myself: Anne Rice says she is not quitting Christ, but Christianity. She remains, she says, a follower of Jesus, one who is devoted to the Bible. For her, Christianity is something else. It’s the institutional or the religious system she has been a part of for a number of years. She has found herself unable to identify with what she perceives is its ugliness of attitude toward gay/lesbian people, toward some of certain political persuasions, and toward women in general. She says that she’ll continue to follow Jesus, but not his followers.
May I be frank? I get her point even if I’m not prepared to do like her. But I don’t feel constrained, as some will feel, to critique her either. I’m more inclined to want to weep, to be humbled, even to feel a bit of anger, since I am an obscure participant of the movement she condemns by her quitting. Nevertheless, I think a lot of us would be wise to listen to her and to make sure we hear everything she is saying before we form our rebuttals.
My last thought. I don’t think Anne Rice is alone. She just knows, more than most, how to get her thoughts out to a larger, admiring public. What worries me is that there are lots more people who feel similarly and who may be doing the same thing: exiting what they call institutional religion and choosing what they believe is a more private, customized relationship with Jesus whom they claim they revere. They think it is enough to keep in touch with the Christian movement through religious TV and occasional arena-sized weekend conferences featuring celebrity speakers and singers.
If I were to meet Anne Rice, and if she were open to discussing her decision to quit Christianity, I’d want to know how so-called Christians in her world managed to mangle the gospel of Jesus so badly that they caused her to leave in disgust.
Then, even if I presume myself to be not guilty of the things she thinks she sees in organized Christianity, I think I would offer an apology. Finally, assuming she’s interested, I’d tell her about some mini-communities of Christ-followers I know of who are neither pejorative nor prejudicial, but people who love to worship the Lord, to help each other grow spiritually, and to encourage one another to live servant-like in the larger world.
I think, if she met them, she’d “de-quit.”
Posted by Marshall Shelley at August 13, 2010 | Comments (25) | TrackBack
August 11, 2010
Oh, Snap--Livin' the Dream
When you get so fed up you don't know what you'll say ...
Every once in a while, a post on a blog that I read elsewhere is so irresistible, I have to share it with you. This one comes from Mike Cope, one of my favorite minister-writers, from his PreacherMike.com blog. He riffs on the recent news story of the flight attendant who lost his cool with a couple of, uh, demanding passengers. And some of the comments on Mike's blog are priceless. We'll share one just to whet your appetite and encourage you to visit Mike's site. But let us read your comments here, too.
* * * * * *
by Mike
Come on — tell me you haven’t fantasized about this before. You’ve preached one last sermon . . . or seen one last patient . . . or attended one last sales meeting . . . or held one more parent conference — and something sent you over the line. You snapped. What do you do?
Here’s one possibility:
On Monday, a JetBlue attendant named Steven Slater snapped on the tarmac at Kennedy International Airport, the authorities said.
After a dispute with a passenger who stood to fetch his luggage too soon on a full flight just in from Pittsburgh, Mr. Slater, a career flight attendant, had had enough.
He got on the intercom, let loose a string of invective, pulled the lever that activates the emergency-evacuation chute and slid down, making a dramatic exit not only from the plane but, one imagines, also his airline career.
On his way out the door, he paused to grab a beer from the beverage cart. Then he ran to the employee parking lot and drove off, the authorities said.
Gotta love that he stopped for a beer. He’s figuring that his services won’t be needed again, so why not celebrate with a Heineken on the way out?
What’s your chute escape fantasy?
* * * * *
Okay, so that's what Mike posted. One commenter was someone named Jake. And I'll give you three guesses what Jake does for a living. And the first two don't count.
* * * * *
by Jake
I stand up on Sunday morning and say this:
“I know the leaders have been agonizing on the failure of this church to grow for the last few years. You’re wondering what model we need: WillowCreek, Saddleback, Gateway, etc. I have bad news. There is no new model. Changing youth ministers won’t help. Sending everyone on staff to a big event won’t do it. The truth is that we’re unwilling to change while our community has changed dramatically. We’re acting like it’s 1960, except that after our obsessing on worship, that tiny aspect of our lives now looks different. But we’re sitting on our butts wanting to be served, rather than joining God in his mission in our community. It’s not the community we had, and the old community isn’t coming back. We’ve drawn in the bridge and complained about those around us. Meanwhile, Jesus waits for us on the other side of the moat. But, hey, I’ve suggested this before and no one seems interested. It’s much easier to think a new minister, a new worship style will “fix” everything– with the same old worldview, same old threadbare theology, and same old isolation. So, right now I’m saying I love you, God loves you, and good luck.”
Then I walk down the center aisle, set my brand-new-cool wireless mic on the back pew, and head out to the local bar to have a cold one with Jesus.
Not that I’ve thought about it.
Posted by Marshall Shelley at August 11, 2010 | Comments (2) | TrackBack
August 9, 2010
Small Churches = Big Impact
Ed Stetzer interviews Brandon O'Brien about his book, "The Strategically Small Church"
Brandon O'Brien, associate editor for Leadership Journal, has written a new book, The Strategically Small Church. In this work, he seeks to demonstrate how small churches are uniquely equipped for success in today's culture. Ed Stetzer interviewed O'Brien about his book and why being small may be more missionally strategic.
Ed: What do you mean by "strategically small church"? Is this a new church model, like "simple" or "organic" church?
Brandon: A "strategically small" church is one that has learned to recognize and leverage the inherent strengths of being small. Being strategically small means that instead of trying to overcome your congregation's size, you have learned to use it to strategic ministry advantage.
In other words, I'm not advocating a new model of doing church. Instead I'm hoping that by telling the stories of some truly innovative and effective small churches, other small congregations will stop viewing their size and limited resources as liabilities and begin thinking about them as advantages.
Ed: What keeps small churches from becoming "strategically small?"
Brandon: Many small churches try to operate like big churches. The idea seems to be that if we imitate what the megachurches are doing--if we do ministry like them--then we'll grow like them. The trouble is, operating like a big church can undermine the inherent strengths of being small.
For example, as I explain in the book, research suggests that one of the factors that contributes to whether or not young people stay active in church after high school is intergenerational relationships. The students who have more and deeper relationships with adults other than their parents are much more likely to remain in the church in college and beyond. Now, smaller congregations offer tons of opportunity for developing these intergenerational relationships. But the hallmark of large churches is age-segmented ministry, programs designed to separate children from youth, youth from adults, young adults from seniors. When small churches imitate this model, they undercut their advantage for fostering intergenerational relationships.
Ed: So are you arguing that small churches are more effective than larger ones just because of their size?
Brandon: Absolutely not. I have been involved in healthy big churches and unhealthy small churches (and vice versa). But I believe that small churches have some real advantages over larger ones, advantages that could make them more effective in some important aspects of their ministry. That doesn't mean, though, that small churches will be more effective just because they are small. A congregation has to recognize its strengths and learn how to leverage them in order to be effective.
What I'm trying to say is that small churches aren't ineffective because they are small. Size isn't the problem. The problem is being star-struck by mega ministries so that we fail to recognize all the wonderful things the small church has going for it.
Ed: Some people will argue that if a church isn't growing numerically, it isn't healthy. How do you respond to that?
Brandon: First, I would say that there are many ways to gauge the health and vitality of a church. Instead of measuring success in terms of the number of people we attract, we can judge success in terms of how many people we equip and send out for ministry, for example.
Second, in many places, perpetual numerical growth will be impossible: in rural areas where there aren't many people to attract or in urban areas where the cost of real estate prohibits growth. We need to learn to be more creative--and more biblical--about the ways we measure ministry success. The churches I highlight in the book determine their success based on the percentage of their youth and young adults who stay active in church life after high school, the number of people they are training and sending out to launch sister congregations, the percentage of congregants who are involved in ministry outside the church, or the congregation's ability to reach people on the margins. These things may, and sometimes do, result in numerical growth. But they definitely contribute to kingdom growth, which is ultimately much more important.
Ed: Is there any content in this book that would be interesting to pastors of larger churches?
Brandon: It's funny--my uncle is pastor of a megachurch, one of the fastest growing churches in America at the moment. When he found out about my book, he said, "I'll read your book because we're family, but I wouldn't be interested in the topic otherwise." Fair enough.
I've noticed a trend in my work at Leadership journal: large churches are finding ways to channel a small church vibe. Some megachurches are building small chapels where they offer quieter, more intimate worship on Sunday mornings; they are hiring staff members to facilitate intergenerational relationships; they are moving away from programming and focusing more on developing people. I think this book could help pastors in those churches make these adjustments with greater clarity of vision.
In fact, one of my favorite chapters in the book highlights the ministries of two churches who approach ministry in exactly the same way. One has 200 members. The other has 2,000. Again, I'm not talking about a church model; I'm talking about the way we understand ministry success. That applies in churches of all sizes.
Ed: What is the one main point you want readers to take away from this book?
Brandon: If readers take nothing else from the book, I want them to hear this: your church--whatever size--has everything it needs to be used in extraordinary ways for the Kingdom of God. You don't need more resources or more volunteers; you just need the imagination to see how God has equipped you uniquely to carry the gospel to your neighbors.
Order your copy of The Strategically Small Church.
Posted by UrL Scaramanga at August 9, 2010 | Comments (7) | TrackBack
August 6, 2010
Pastors are Fatter, Sicker, & more Depressed
What does it say when those at the center of the church are the least healthy?
The New York Times is reporting on new research that shows pastors appear to be struggling with health issues--both physical and psychological--more than other Americans. The article reports:
"Members of the clergy now suffer from obesity, hypertension and depression at rates higher than most Americans. In the last decade, their use of antidepressants has risen, while their life expectancy has fallen. Many would change jobs if they could."
The article goes on to speculate on causes for the decline in clergy health. A key culprit: lack of boundaries. Pastors have an increasing number of expectations. Not only are they expected to function as CEOs for complex organizations, but also spiritual shepherds, teachers, and care-givers for large numbers of people.
One researcher from Duke University sums it up well: "These people tend to be driven by a sense of a duty to God to answer every call for help from anybody, and they are virtually called upon all the time, 24/7.”
If we are to believe these findings, what should be conclude? If ministry is proving to be unhealthy for those closest to the center of the church, what are we communicating to those on the edges? And is this simply another example of already unhealthy people being attracted to the "helping" professions? In other words, are the people most drawn to ministry those with a messiah complex who lack boundaries, who seek to satisfy their ego-needs through saving others? Or are church systems to blame for putting far too much pressure on the paid clergy?
The questions abound. Let the conversation begin.
Posted by UrL Scaramanga at August 6, 2010 | Comments (15) | TrackBack
August 4, 2010
Ur Video: Dever & Wallis on Justice and the Gospel (Part 2)
What did Jesus mean in Matthew 25 about judgment and compassion toward the poor?
In part two of the conversation between Mark Dever, Jim Wallis, and Skye Jethani, they talk about the judgment passage in Matthew 25. Was Jesus saying that our just and compassionate actions toward "the least of these" is central to our faith, or are they evidence of our faith? Is justice a gospel imperative or a gospel implication?
Pick up the Summer issue of Leadership Journal to read more from Dever, Wallis, and others on the intersection of justice and evangelism.
Posted by UrL Scaramanga at August 4, 2010 | Comments (7) | TrackBack
August 2, 2010
Down with the Homogeneous Unit Principle?
Can we call our church model “biblical” if we’re not reaching out to everyone?
Ninety-five percent African American, five percent other. These are the demographics of the Chicago neighborhood where our three-month-old church has been planted. I am “other.” White. One hundred percent white. As the pastor of this young church plant, I have lost sleep over these percentages.
Most of the church planting models and examples I’ve been exposed to are very different from my current cross-cultural experience. In the recent past, the Homogeneous Unit Principle (HUP) was viewed positively as the rationale for starting churches of demographically similar people. This principle states that it is easier for people to become Christians when they must cross few or no racial, linguistic, or class barriers. Ideally, then, these new churches were led by pastors whose culture, class, and skin color closely matched those of their flocks.
The HUP is seen less favorably these days, but it remains common for church planters to target culturally similar people. Categories such as cultural elites, the creative class, or young professionals may sound exotic but are often used to describe people most like the church planter.
Take the recent urban church-planting trend. Like me, many of these church-planters are not native to the city. So why are they leaving suburbia to start urban churches? In a recent blog post, Tim Keller identifies what I think is the primary motivation for many of these church plants:
“For the last twenty years, since 1990, American cities have experienced an amazing renaissance. People began moving back into cities in droves, and downtown/center cities began to regenerate at their cores.”
In other words, the children who grew up in homogeneous suburban churches are moving into America’s cities, followed closely by the next generation of church planters. The result? Young, urban, and homogeneous churches.
To be absolutely clear, I believe we need new churches that reach everyone. Not only that, we need many types of churches to reach many types of people. Yet I am increasingly surprised at how few churches and church-planters seem interested in extending the gospel to people unlike themselves. Why is this?
There are good reasons to be hesitant about cross-cultural church planting. As a white man pastoring a multi-ethnic church in a historically African-American neighborhood, I’ve become exceedingly aware of the perils. Anxieties about patriarchy, inexperience with racism, and ignorance about other cultures and histories are realities I must deal with directly and repeatedly. Additionally, most of us are keenly aware of how difficult it is to bridge racial and class divisions. The amount of humility and patience needed to do so can seem super-human and—to be frank—not worth the effort. In fact, if not for the nature of the Gospel itself, the pitfalls of non-homogeneous ministry are enough to dissuade even the most cross-culturally adept church planter.
In his letter to the Ephesians, Paul identifies himself both as “the prisoner of Christ Jesus for the sake of you Gentiles” and “a servant of the gospel.” It is this gospel that has “brought near through the blood of Christ” those who were once divided by a “wall of hostility.” God chose Paul, a Jew, to proclaim and demonstrate the reconciling gospel to people completely unlike himself. The power of God’s atoning work through Jesus was displayed throughout the Roman Empire through the unlikely medium of a Jewish messenger and the powerful message of reconciliation through Christ.
The same unlikely medium and message are needed today, and homogeneous models of church planting are ill suited for the task. When Paul pleads with the early churches to “Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bonds of peace,” he has something far more compelling in mind than the ecclesial squabbles we might imagine. The very reputation of the gospel is on the line as cultural enemies are invited into a new family together. Is the same not true in our day?
A lot of energy is currently being expended debating which church models are most Biblical. House or mega? Plant or second site? Video or campus pastor? These may be important questions, but any model that fails to take seriously the reconciliation envisioned by Paul will also fail to fully communicate the Gospel message with power.
Paul’s cross-cultural church planting model not only demonstrates the Gospel’s power, it also has pastoral benefits for a new church. More so than a life-long suburbanite, a pastor who grew up in the city is better able to shed gospel light on the suburban idols of comfort, privacy, and safety. A Hispanic pastor with an innate cultural understanding of community may foster more unity and interdependence among a predominantly white congregation than any small group ministry ever could. These are generalizations, of course, but they show the benefits when old lines of division are crossed with care for the sake of the gospel.
Again, we need new churches of all different types. Thanks be to God that whatever the shortcomings of our strategies, it is his church and mission. Even so, we must continue to choose church-planting models whose very essence displays, as Paul puts it, “the mystery of Christ.” On those restless nights when I doubt my ability to pastor those so different than myself, it is this mystery that finally puts me to sleep.
Posted by UrL Scaramanga at August 2, 2010 | Comments (7) | TrackBack
