But doesn't perpetuity imply a longevity of vision that extends beyond the originator of the mission, and by extension indicates that the original vision was from G-d to begin with?
Compassion International certainly is a classic example of this, and yet, somehow, I think you are being quick to disabuse the mission organization as too institutionalized to being flexible to new opportunities presented by G-d.
Wouldn't be far more proper to say that G-d's work will extend as far as there are people willing to bear the load?
Wasn't it Gamaliel who cautioned the Sanhedrin with, "If this is of G-d, you will find yourself opposed to G-d, and if it is of man, then it will fail on its own."
I think we can safely say same-same here in the Church.
If a mission/effort/focus/passion is of G-d then it will continue...if it is of itself...it will fail on its own.

I believe, sheerahkahn, that what we can safely say we do want to have longevity is the Kingdom of God. However, that kingdom is going to continue regardless of our missions, churches, and visions. Compassion International is wonderful. However, if we all woke up tomorrow and it was folded - that doesn't mean it wasn't a success. We must center ourselves on success being our devotion to the cross. How do we do that? By living the next minute devoted to it. And the next, and then the next. Each of those minutes is a success. If the minutes suddenly stop because of the Spirit or because of the mortality of a human life - it doesn't change that the last 3 minutes was a success.
Success is loving the unlovely, defending the defenseless, and preaching the remission of sins through the death and resurrection of Jesus. Sometimes that takes just a few minutes. Sometimes it's a life time.

By this logic, sheerahkahn, Paul's work in Ephesus, Corinth, Philippi, and Colossae was not from God because each of those churches has failed to endure. Similarly, what are we to conclude about the Reformation in Western Europe based on the current secular reality in Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Germany?

Indeed, God's mission and work will endure. But the methods, strategies, and vessels (both institutions and people) of the work are always changing.

I feel a tension here. In some ways, you're right that we focus too much on perpetuity of a program/ministry rather than vocation, faith, or Christ.

On the other hand, I am reminded of a (snippet of a) quote from Reinhold Niebuhr: "Nothing that is worth doing can be achieved in our lifetime..." Along with that quote, I think of Hebrews 11, where the people of faith throughout the Bible were those who strove for something that was unseen in their lifetimes, that was accomplished after they were dead.

Christians--myself included--often confuse these things. We see the ability of a program/ministry/effort to outlast its founder as evidence of the faith of the founder. We conflate longevity with faith. And when a 'legacy' exists for the benefit and renown of a person, this is bad.

But when God calls us to work toward something 'bigger than ourselves,' something that cannot be accomplished by a single person, or even within a single lifetime, it is a right and good thing for that effort to outlast the individual.

That might be the drive behind so many who seek to build institutions that will outlast them. But at the same time, it's difficult to differentiate between faith that hopes but does not see, and institutions/systems established out of pride.

That's the real tension here.

Perhaps the 'unwillingness to let go' is the sign of pride in lieu of faith.

If we have faith, we will be willing to pour out our lives in service to God, but willing to let go in an instant if God calls us to do so. If we have pride, we will hold on with a death-grip, unwilling to release to God what is really His.

I'd like to know who says that the Mega churches are successful?

Christianity has never really been that popular.

I'd like to ask them what they are doing wrong to attract so MANY people each week.

Thanks Skye,

I find myself agreeing with the caution you offer, but think that this tendency comes with its own dangers. I actually think scripture gives us plenty of examples of intentional transition plans that are precisely designed to foster a long term presence.

To sheer you write, "By this logic, sheerahkahn, Paul's work in Ephesus, Corinth, Philippi, and Colossae was not from God because each of those churches has failed to endure. " I think that this is an unfair dichotomy. Those churches didn't survive for 2000 years but they did outlast Paul's visit. Paul did have a plan for longevity. He appointed elders in every town. Similarly I hope that every God honoring community is intentionally raising up new leaders and empowering them to lead.

You are right to caution against and unhealthy obsession with longevity, but I also think that we are grateful for those churches and ministries that have had a continual presence for generations. There is a danger here, but the danger is in imbalance not in longevity.

The Biblical witness seem to be clear. Change happens, don't cling to ways that God has finished using. But it is equally clear that we must prepare for transition. Moses appointed Joshua, Elisha and Elija, Jesus left the twelve in charge, The twelve appointed elders. etc.

Your comment got me thinking, Sheerahkahn. If Gamaliel would have lived in the seventh century when Mohammed and Islam was rising, and he'd said, "If it's of God, it will last. If it's not it will disappear," would we agree that his principle is valid?

Just curious. Islam has lasted almost 1500 years. Does that mean it's from God?

"Just curious. Islam has lasted almost 1500 years. Does that mean it's from God?"

Uh...well...um...hmmm...A fair question...and um...yeah...obviously, I got nothing.

Sheer, Your premise is problematic that if it is from God it will last. I see this in two specific ways. It limits God's work to a method or program. God's plans will be ultimately accomplished, they will be through the church even, however this does not mean a local assembly.

Secondly, I believe your view limits the ripple effect of ministry to institutions and ignore the impact of disciple making.

I do know from your comments here in the past that this is NOT what you believe.

As for Gamaliel, I think he was pretty narrow. He had seen the amazing launch of the church based upon the event of the resurrection but still cannot make up his mind? Kind of crazy if you ask me.

Good words here Skye.

This is one of the most thought-provoking posts, Skye. And thanks, Sheer, for pointing the conversation in a really good direction. This is why I really like this blog!

I'm having a thought, which I will lay the blame at the feet of Jarrod…only because he asked a really good question for which I did not have a readily good answer for him at the time…but it got me thinking along a similar tract:

Our perception of time is a linear construct of past, present, and future. What is past, is past, what is present is present, and what is future is future.
However, does G-d see that same linear construct as we do?
Is the past past for G-d, or is it still a part of his immediate present?
Is the future still the future for G-d, or is it a part of his present as well?
Present wouldn't enter into the discussion because by definition, the present is always present, it is the here and now, but it begs the question of what divinity sees in regards to his perspective…is the past the past, and is the future really the future?
So, if we discuss perpetuity of G-d's blessings on a ministry, are we speaking of our spatial awareness, or G-d's?
Are we seeing the growth of a ministry or the failure of one from a human perspective locked in our linear spatial view, or should we see it from the flow of G-d?
I use the word "flow" because of lack of a coherent description of occurring events; that, and I have no idea what else to call G-d's perspective.
So, taken in with that, and especially with regards to Ephesians 1 and how G-d's plan is working and everyone, willingly or unwillingly is part of the plan of redemption, what is to say that Islam doesn't play some small part in the redemption of mankind?
Doesn't G-d work through human agency?
Doesn't G-d use the efforts of those who hate and deny him to his advantage and his purpose?
What is to say that perpetuity is the focus of a ministry, but also the beginning of a larger purpose for which we can not, or incapable of seeing due to our spatial handicap?
A purpose clearly stated by G-d, but as of yet, unimaginable to us because we have no standard to compare it too other than our tired and tried methodologies of institutionalized efforts which G-d has decided to work with/through for his own reasons.
This is still in a raw form, but it seems to me that we, and I may be looking at this all wrong.
I need to think about this some more, thoughts though from others would help here in my thinking.