Unavoidable Questions

Bill Kinnon at Achievable Ends has now given us a "Missional Guru Test." He is now ready to ask that group of missional experts some questions. They are, in reality, the questions to ask anyone who purports to have some answers.

I confess that I'm really not interested in hearing theories anymore. I want to know how the missonal profundities emanating from the particular guru are applied in their own lives - right now. Not last year, last century or last millenium. But. Right now.

"Where are you plugged into a local expression of a missional community? How does that impact what you are sharing with us?"

Jesus lived what he taught the disciples. We should have no less expectation of those who want to disciple us.

I have to admit that this does cut close to home. I am a believer in the missional approach to the church. I also know that the church will take a long time to get back to that. Even my Moravian Church, built on that missional theology and with it firmly in our roots, has trouble finding a 21st Century incarnation of that theology.

I don't know what to do. Perhaps I am just an old, tired, modern pastor living in a post-modern world with ideas and dreams and visions that don't seem to get anywhere anymore. Maybe we are living in one of those incredibly difficult transition eras where we are percolating many different visions and views and over the next century they will be sifted and sorted into a vision and expression of church that we today could not even begin to imagine.

But the questions Bill asked are on target. Where can one find a "missional community" in the midst of a surplus of "seeker-sensitive" churches, contemporary - vs- traditional worship, fundamentalist, right-wing, left-wing, evangelical, liberal and on and on. How will one know a missional community when one sees it? How does one who is interested go about building such a community from outside the church hierarchy or when one is part of a community that could care less about missional anything?

The questions go on and on. Thanks, Bill, for starting the thoughts going. I wish I knew where to find some answers.

Uncalled for Violence

This was in yesterday's New York Times

Zimbabwe’s Rulers Unleash Police on Anglicans
By CELIA W. DUGGER
Published in NYT: May 16, 2008

The parishioners were lined up for Holy Communion on Sunday when the riot police stormed the stately St. Francis Anglican Church in Harare, Zimbabwe’s capital. Helmeted, black-booted officers banged on the pews with their batons as terrified members of the congregation stampeded for the doors, witnesses said.

Nothing short of scary. According to the article the ruling party has targeted groups that they have not been able to control. This includes "the Anglican diocese of Harare, as well as charitable and civic organizations, trade unions, teachers, independent election monitors and the political opposition."

It seems that there is a renegade Anglican bishop who is an ally of the President, Robert Mugabe. Somehow or another Mugabe's ruling party says that only followers of that Bishop are allowed to worship. The Times says,

Over the past three Sundays, the police have interrogated Anglican priests and lay leaders, arrested and beaten parishioners and locked thousands of worshipers out of dozens of churches.

Many American Christians (usually of the right-wing persuasion, feel that Christians in the United States are being persecuted. This story is about persecution. I am grateful that here in America we don't face those things. I pray we will never have to.

But that forces me to pray even more fervently for those who are persecuted for their religious beliefs. I don't care what the religion is, freedom of worship should be a basic human right. There is persecution of many different religions in many different places. It is not, I believe, God's will. No, don't quote the Old Testament to justify it or to counter the thought that freedom of religion is essential. It is not for us to say who can and can't worship. If one is forbidden, any can be forbidden.

Pray that such can be stopped and avoided. I can only believe that this would be God's will.

The Church's Responsibility - All of the Above

I came across a poll the other week over at Christianity Today. It struck me as really interesting, if only for the way the poll was worded and the options:

Christianity Today Poll:

What is a church's most important responsibility to attendees?

• Helping non-Christians find Christ.
• Leading in worship.
• Developing mature believers.
• Gathering people for fellowship.
• Administering sacraments.
• Outlining Christian beliefs.

Wow! I found this a tough, really tough, poll. The problem was in its wording. Look at it again:

What is a church's most important responsibility to attendees?

There is the question and then a qualifier. What is the church's most important responsibility? That leads perhaps to one answer.

What is a church's most important responsibility to attendees? Ah, perhaps that's a different one, especially since "attendee" may most often describe those attending worship.

Then there's the fact that the answers offered never say that the most important responsibility is to "be like Jesus" or "be the living witness to Christ" or any of the things mentioned by Jesus when he read the prophets at the Synagogue in Nazareth or his famous listing of what separates the sheep from the goats in Matthew 25. "Ministry" is not included in that list, or at least "ministry" as most of us were trained in it for most of the last couple generations of American clergy. Neither is "mission" in the very deep and broad sense of the word from foreign fields to local neighborhoods.

And the key to that may very well be found in the question's qualifier- "to its attendees." I had a difficult time answering it, but at least some others did not. Here's the results (Total Votes: 1323):

• Helping non-Christians find Christ 24%
• Leading in worship 6%
• Developing mature believers 54%
• Gathering people for fellowship 3%
  
• Administering sacraments 4%
  
• Outlining Christian beliefs 2%
  
• Other 5%
• I don't know 2%

A number of things actually surprised me about the results.

First, that "leading in worship" was such a very, very distant third at 6% and that "other" was close behind. (Although it is notable that "worship" and "sacraments" together were 10%. Perhaps those in more sacramental churches would put those two together.

Second, that "developing mature believers" was more than 50%. I am not sure what that means but I know that most churches have plenty of those opportunities and they aren't all that well attended.

Third, that the "evangelism" question about introducing new people to Christ was #1 did not surprise me- except it assumes that among a church's "attendees" are many who do not know Christ. Perhaps that is part of the "seeker-sensitive" movement of the last 15 - 20 years.


I honestly don't remember what I answered. With the qualifier of "attendees" I think I put either worship or sacraments. I didn't cop out with the "other" idea. So what would I answer? Well, I have an "other" to add:

To provide its attendees (members) the opportunity to be in mission with Jesus Christ in their lives and the world.

Or as I used to say it:

To make disciples who make disciples who make disciples.

Yes, I know that this is a basket kind of answer that includes "all the above." But that is because I think that "all of the above" don't even come close to the answer and they set up a false choice, even a straw man choice. The church is the church not when you do one or some of these. The church is the church when it does all of the above in following Jesus.

Having been sitting on the "outside" of the church ministry working in the secular world for over 4 years I have come to the awareness that the "attendees" and "members" need all of these and more. We need the church to be the place where we are empowered to be like Jesus and to minister to Jesus wherever we find Him. We need the church to remind us of our missional calling and not be "attendees" but "disciples."

Unfortunately, the church as a whole doesn't seem to do that very well partly because it does try to prioritize "all of the above" instead of utilizing "all of the above" to carry out its one and only responsibility- to live as the Body of Christ.

Pondering The Thoughts

By Martin Luther King, Jr.

The church must be reminded that it is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the state, and never its tool. If the church does not recapture its prophetic zeal, it will become an irrelevant social club without moral or spiritual authority.
Source: Strength to Love

We often forget in the midst of all his other remarkable gifts and achievements that Dr. King was a pastor and what he did he did because of his church and faith-filled background. He had a sharp sense for his day of what the role of the church could be. We have much to be thankful for in his life and ministry.

Amen, Brother, Amen.

Are You Ready for Church Tomorrow?

Ben Myers linked to a great post from Byron at Nothing New Under the Sun. As we Christians get ready for church tomorrow, it is worth considering:

Does church terrify you? Do you get shivers down your spine when you arrive each week? Do you wake up early on a Sunday morning in a cold sweat? You should. Maybe you should. We do some scary things each week. It might seem harmless enough, but we’re playing with holy fire.... [E]ach week we ask God to forgive us our sins in the same manner that we forgive those who sin against us - a scary prayer.

Makes me stop and think twice about what might happen tomorrow morning- if I am open to the possibility of God at work in the worship.

Back to Church

It's been a few weeks since I have been to church. Travel, vacation, oversleeping when an overnight power outage un-set my alarm, and a few times of just being lazy. So it was with a lot of joy that I went to church this morning. It was communion- which is always special. There was nothing special- no big event to try to draw more people in. No promotional anything. Just worship and communion.

And I knew why I go to church on a Sunday like that. Other than Christmas Eve and Easter Sunday I don't think I like the BIG Sundays. All the hoopla and goings-on take away from the reason I am there. I go to be in touch with God along with my brothers and sisters. I have a hunch that what I am looking most for is that connection with those who are there just for the sake of being there.

Some of the music and the service was not something that would necessarily be attractive to non-Christians. It might sound dated. (Might? Some of the language is downright ancient!) The music can sound like something out of a previous century. (It is. Even most of the "contemporary" stuff is, too!) But I realized as I sat there that since I am not the pastor or music leader or anyone else of any authority in the congregation, I didn't really care that the music and style may not have been attractive.

It moved me, deeply. We did the St. Patrick's Breastplate Prayer. As it rolled off my tongue and into my soul I felt the Spirit.

We prayed the Lord's Prayer. As the ancient and familiar words went forth I knew that God was present.

We took the bread and the cup and sang from the hymnal. I knew- i knew that I was with brothers and sisters in Christ.

Worship is not necessarily to be evangelism. I don't think that's what it's about. (I know- I have probably changed my tune on this many times over the past 30 years.) Not that evangelism- sharing the Good News and the Life of Jesus- doesn't happen in worship. It does in very profound ways. But it is also about a lot of other things- the feeding and sharing of the community, the opportunity for fellowship, the time and place to be challenged to continue to grow in faith, the call to go forth and live- yes, live- what we have just been through so that the world may be a better and more Spirit-filled place more often in ministry and mission.

I am fortunate in that I can go to just about any worship service and have an opportunity to be in touch with God. I have had it happen in Catholic, Episcopalian, Lutheran, small and large and mega-churches. I have even had it happen in Jewish synagogues. So if we hadn't had that particular mix of worship elements I would probably still have experienced what I experienced. It is a tricky mix to lead worship and do it in a way that en-thuses (from en-theos) the most people.

I am glad I was there this morning. It was good to be back.

Update: After I finished this post I was surfing over at Bene Diction and found a variation- or at least another facet of what I was trying to say. He first has some information from someone who had been to the Greenbelt Festival in Britain and the "cheerleader" effect of so many worship leaders.

I still love to be in God’s presence. I still love to worship. But I no longer need to be ushered to the throne of God like in the past. I no longer need a cheerleader pointing me to Jesus.

Then BD shares some of his place as well:

That does not negate the people that find worship in this style Tuscano relates at Greenbelt, I don’t mean to imply that. I have moved through the season of the cheerleader and into a place where the tradition of the saints that have gone before and left us their music and their traditions.

worship: reverent honor and homage paid to God: To regard with ardent or adoring esteem or devotion.

Me and Jesus songs, lots of noise, shouting, jumping up and down, raising hands and
acting a certain way. Repetition has lost it’s appeal, I don’t need entertainment and I too, find it like sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal.

Well said, my friend. Well said.

Some Church Quotes

A few quotes about church have struck me recently. Now that I have finished my series on what I would do if I went back into parish ministry, I keep seeing more and more places where these thoughts are echoed or supported. First, one that Randy posted:

The church is notorious for shooting its wounded and putting its rookies on the front line (saving the fluff jobs for those who by seniority have “earned” it). We do more damage to ourselves than we have ever done to the gates of hell.

~Wayne Jacobsen, Naked Church

This is a stinging comment, but has such truth in it. One of the comments my wife and I used to make about one of the churches where we served was that they were a church that "didn't shoot their wounded." That meant that the walking wounded were treated with respect and compassion, not turned into heretics or pariahs. Sadly a look at many histories of many churches will find that this is not the norm for many of them- especially when they mess up in the church or are perceived to do so.

Next is a quote from a number of years ago that shows that this is not all that new. Inward/Outward, a ministry of The Church of the Savior, had a quote from Elizabeth O'Connor, one of their members who wrote their story back in the 70s. Church of the Savior, founded in Washington, D.C. in 1947, may well be one of the first "missional churches" and here's a quote from Elizabeth's book about that church:

When [the church] starts to be the church, it will constantly be adventuring out into places where there are no tried and tested ways. If the church in our day has few prophetic voices to sound above the noises of the street, perhaps in large part it is because the pioneering spirit has become foreign to it. It shows little willingness to explore new ways. Where it does it has often been called an experiment. We would say that the church of Christ is never an experiment, but wherever that church is true to its mission it will be experimenting, pioneering, blazing new paths, seeking how to speak the reconciling Word of God to its own age.

Source: Call to Commitment

That last line is a great statement of the church. The church is NOT an experiment- it is God's plan and community- but it will be experimenting, being pioneers in each age. That is what the missional church theology and ideal has been trying to do. It is a rich tradition. Moravians in Germany in the 1720s and '30s were doing the same. Where the church is pioneering and moving and changing to meet the changing spiritual needs around them- that is where you can find the church in mission.


Maggi Dawn explores another issue- how do you reach out in mission and work with people who, for whatever reasons, have had negative church experiences. The wounded who may have been shot by previous issues? In my experience of working with lots of different people, I have discovered that this is far more common than you might think. Here's what she had to say:

So what do we with the call of the gospel to become part of the Church, if our experience of Church thus far is just too bad to overcome? The answer to this dilemma, I believe, is not to abandon the idea of church, but to rediscover what it means for church to be fully a community. This applies equally to denominational churches that have lost their way, and to new groups that are afraid of being too committed for fear of getting hurt again. The answer in both cases is not to withdraw, but to create community. And this will not come to anyone without cost and some degree of hurt along the way, because it's in the nature of creating community that it is both challenging and expensive to the individual. A community that doesn't challenge your ego and upset your equilibrium from time to time is probably not getting to grips with the faith.

To create a community that is not just a place of care and support but one that will challenge the ego and quilibrium- sounds like something Jesus would have done. There is a lot of discussion and prayer and work and writing being done on all these things. The church is very much alive. How we see it- how the institutional aspects far together, those are big issues. But the church is very much around and filled with the Spirit.

What If I Went Back?
Conclusion
Section One of this series dealt with what I miss now that I am doing "secular" ministry after thirty years as a parish pastor. Section Two was about what I don't miss. Section Three was talking about "secular ministry." Section Four looked at what I've learned in these three years in "secular ministry."
Links to earlier sections:
Introduction
1. What I Miss: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
2. What I Don't Miss: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
Interlude (1)
3. Secular Ministry: Part 1, Part 2
4. What I've Learned: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
Interlude (2)
5. What I Would Do: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What I miss
what I don't miss
what I learned
what I would do.

That's what I promised I would talk about in this series. I hope I have done so in a way that opened up some different angles or perspectives on the church and ministry. I have had many eye-opening insights over these past three and a half years working outside the church. Perhaps to many of you who are not pastors those insights were "Ho-hum" or "So, you just realized that?" For me they caused at least some small shifts- and some large ones.

To sit on the outside of the church has challenged me most by showing how narrow a vision it is easy to develop when we think we have "The Way." We begin to think we are perfect and only if people come to see it our way will they be on the right track. That grandiosity, which doesn't fit Jesus' style at all, stands out as one of our greatest obstacles to living His way and hearing the cries of need around us.

I have not, repeat, absolutely not, given up on the church in all of this. Each and every day of each and every year since the first Pentecost the people of God have been involved in some of the most incredible and life-changing ministries. People are finding God. People are being uplifted and upheld. People are being liberated from sin and oppression. Sometimes it has been the organized church that has done the leading to these occurrences, and many times it hasn't. But it is happening. It will continue to happen.

If I were to go back into parish ministry, then, I would seek to find more and more ways to allow those things to happen more and more often. I would not want to take a call that would be just to maintain a church's status quo or be their chaplain. I would not want to pastor a dying church just keeping its doors open until the last of the group dies or leaves. That is a hospice care. I am not called to that.

Somehow or another in the translation from Jesus to the modern church we have lowered our sights, we have narrowed our vision, we have become the Pharisees seeking to maintain whatever edge on God we think we have. I am as guilty of this as anyone. It is probably a disease of religious leadership no matter the style or denomination or faith. It is part of our human sin.

As a pastor I would seek to be a leader, not a manager; a change agent and not a hand-holder. Yes there are times and places for those in any church. Christians (members of the church) are in need of support and care. But that is not, cannot, must not be the focus of the ministry. It is far broader than that. It has to do with the world around us.

The world has changed drastically since that September day in 1974 when I was ordained. We are not in that world- and have not been for many years. It took my stepping outside the church into secular ministry to see how much that is true. I don't know if God wants me to go back into the church or not. He has given me such a hit up the side of the head these past three and a half years that I don't know what that would look like.

But I have to admit that as I stop and think about it- it won't make much difference which way it happens- secular ministry, church ministry, or something I haven't even thought of yet. As long as it is God at work, I will do whatever it is as faithfully as I can. I have a hunch that, even as I start my 60th year, there is probably at least one more great adventure ahead for me with God.

What If I Went Back?
What I Would Do (9)
Section One of this series dealt with what I miss now that I am doing "secular" ministry after thirty years as a parish pastor. Section Two was about what I don't miss. Section Three was talking about "secular ministry." Section Four looked at what I've learned in these three years in "secular ministry."
Links to earlier sections:
Introduction
1. What I Miss: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
2. What I Don't Miss: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
Interlude (1)
3. Secular Ministry: Part 1, Part 2
4. What I've Learned: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
Interlude (2)
5. What I Would Do: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
One of the questions that must be discussed in this whole process for me if I were to return to parish ministry is quite simply a natural outgrowth of what I have written. It is clear to me that if I returned to the parish I would see myself as a change agent seeking to help the congregation move into a new era with a perspective that may or may not be familiar and comfortable. Such a move would be extremely challenging and even difficult.

So the question becomes, "Is it fair to ask a church to change? Is it fair to challenge them to become something they have never been?"

Fair? It is essential! The only option to change is to die.

I know that sounds harsh and even closed-minded. But the option is to support and maintain the status quo and that never works! Never! I have colleagues who would argue with me from their own experiences. I would respond to them that if their congregation is alive and vibrant it is because they have changed. They cannot be doing things the way they did them 20 years ago. If they are, the life is draining out of them.

If a church were to call me I would lay before them what I have been laying out in this series. The status quo will not survive. It never does.

People change. We always do.

The world has changed. The mission is different. Our communities are different. People have different styles and are looking for different ideas. The church has changed. If it hasn't changed forward, it has moved backward.

This does not, absolutely not, mean that we abandon tradition. What we like to call tradition is truly only about 75 years old- as old as about half-way back through the oldest living generation. And in the past 75 years the world has changed more quickly than at any time in history. That is why there seems to be more disconnect and that brings about a true sense of urgency. The church as we know it is not the same and, as any major organization, moves more slowly than the culture.

That's okay, of course. But we need to be at least moving in the right direction. Admittedly I am a "pioneer;" and "early adopter." I change regularly. My wife says she has been married to countless people in our 35 years- and they are all me. That's my DNA. Therefore I need around me those who can remind me to keep people informed and involved. (By the way, that is another role of denominations- a conservative force slowing down change so it doesn't happen so quickly that the church is left behind.) As I said in a post last week though:

Pioneers are not the ones who get the things into reality and a final form. Pioneers, I am told, are passionate people who can sometimes be too passionate. Passion is scary (even to another passionate person.) Passion can turn people off. But the good news is that in most cases somewhere along the line, many of the ideas and dreams of the pioneers become real to others. They settle in and others take them, add flesh to the bones- and off it goes.

Such is the patience and humility needed by the pioneer- to cast the vision, live the passion and then wait to see who picks it up and runs with it.

That is a difficult thing to manage when one is pastor of a church. At least on the surface. It seems like the pastoral role is quite well understood and has been so for a long time. Well, I still believe that with the right kind of dialogue and conversation, beginning before the call is even accepted, it can be done. It is not an easy or a quick task. It may take some time to develop. But it all comes back to leadership.

It does appear that the further into this series that I get- and the closer to the end I get- the question of leadership and management is at the heart of what the church may need for the coming years. I know of very few churches that will be able to survive if they do business as usual from 25 years ago. No, they won't die overnight, but they will find themselves having greater difficulty meeting the needs around them in the changing world.

That leadership can be seen and developed in any style of church. It just has to be appropriate for the community that one is in- and in which the church seeks to be in mission.

Note: I have a hunch that we are quickly coming to the end of this series. There will probably be one more to go summing it all up - if that is possible. It will probably be in a couple of weeks since I have a few other things I think I want to be working on in the next weeks. But feel free to drop me a note if you want me to deal with something specific.

What If I Went Back?
What I Would Do (8)
Section One of this series dealt with what I miss now that I am doing "secular" ministry after thirty years as a parish pastor. Section Two was about what I don't miss. Section Three was talking about "secular ministry." Section Four looked at what I've learned in these three years in "secular ministry."
Links to earlier sections:
Introduction
1. What I Miss: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
2. What I Don't Miss: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
Interlude (1)
3. Secular Ministry: Part 1, Part 2
4. What I've Learned: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
Interlude (2)
5. What I Would Do: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I am a denominational person. This September will mark 33 years that I have been ordained pastor of my particular denomination. Over the past three and a half years I have not sought out any other denomination to worship in. When I walk into a church of my denomination I know I am in a place that feels like home.

I know that I may be part of the last generation of era in which denomination plays such a role. Or maybe not. Pope Benedict XVI and his recent proclamation about the "one true church" and the rest of us as "ecclesial communities" may be an attempt at maintaining the prime position the Roman Church feels it has. But with possible exceptions like his, there are those who say that the era of different denominations is coming to an end.

Or at least the die-hard connections we have made to them. There is a melting pot of worship and style that is happening. There is a re-aligning along different theological fault lines. There is a new tribalism that may be at work based more on comfort than theology.

Which may be the way it has always been. It's just that we got comfortable with our own denominational styles and structures and made them basic to the faith. But does it have a place in the postModern world? Is it useful?

I would give a resounding "Yes!" to that. It potentially marks clear areas of agreement and at times disagreement. The problem is not the different theologies- the problem is when we believe that our theology is the only one, true theology. The question may be more important to consider how we can get along in spite of our differing theologies and bring a united witness to the Gospel.

Denominations give us a sub-identity. Christian- in this day and age- is far too broad a category for most of us. Different denominations give us different places where our individual and unique experiences of the faith can be lived out.

For example, I am not a Pentecostal. I have never spoken in tongues. I believe in the presence of the gifts of the Spirit, including tongues. But such ecstatic worship is uncomfortable to me. That doesn't make it wrong or bad. It just doesn't connect me to God. Is that okay? I hope so. In a postModern world where absolutes will be challenged, anything that appears to be presented as an "Absolute" will be questioned.

Denominations, then, become associations of congregations with like-mindedness on a variety of topics- worship, style, attitude, theology, history, and the like. In that they give those of us in them an identity that says more about us than it does about God. For example, my particular denomination- Moravian- has quite a singular place in history. It is where Protestant mission began. It is where music and congregational singing was introduced. It is where the roots of the Reformation were planted 100 years before Martin Luther.

It is also a denomination that is built on fellowship more than dogma; our story as evidence of the directions we take than on theology. It is a denomination that looks to a religion of the heart more than the head. It is a denomination that is clearly in the mainstream of the mainline Protestant movement and traditionally connected to ecumenism.

That means we are not Lutheran or Episcopalian or Methodist though we have strong connections with all three of them. I can appreciate them- as well as the Baptists and Mennonites, Presbyterians and Alliance churches. The rich tapestry (as one of our liturgies says) of the Christian faith needs- absolutely NEEDS- this diversity. Especially if the church is to reach out to all kinds of people with all kinds of personalities.

How then do we work this in our postModern world? Denominations will hopefully work more fully together to develop resources and opportunities for mission to their own particular groups. If we think we are in competition with other denominations and congregations, we miss the mark. By a wide mile or more. A person who feels comfortable in a Baptist church will probably not feel comfortable in a Lutheran Church. Someone who likes the high liturgy of the Episcopal/Anglican communion will feel short-changed in the Moravian Church. And that is okay!

Denominations give the smaller organizations- the congregations- the chance to do things they might not be able to do on their own and make international and national connections that they never would be able to make. What I guess this means to me is that I would continue- if I went back- to support and promote the work of the denomination as essential to our local mission and our being essential to the greater mission.

Denominational structure is not there to support its own history or view- although it will do that. It is there to support the missional nature of the church. It is essential that the denomination recognize its partnership with the local churches and the local churches partnership with the denomination. We need each other. We are not as a local church to rely solely on ourselves and do only what we want to do. The greater church - as evidenced by the denominational connection- is a way to keep us from being too ingrown.

This is a change in thinking. Not in theory but in practice. It is important as a way of keeping the world-wide witness of the church from being further fractured. If we are looking beyond simply shuffling members around from one church to another, if we are truly interested in reaching out in mission to those who have chosen to remain outside, such a willingness to work together is essential.

We will keep our individual identities and theologies. And thank God for that. I would hate to lose the richness and color of all our styles living and working together in this Kingdom of God.

What If I Went Back?
What I Would Do (7)
Section One of this series dealt with what I miss now that I am doing "secular" ministry after thirty years as a parish pastor. Section Two was about what I don't miss. Section Three was talking about "secular ministry." Section Four looked at what I've learned in these three years in "secular ministry."
Links to earlier sections:
Introduction
1. What I Miss: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
2. What I Don't Miss: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
Interlude (1)
3. Secular Ministry: Part 1, Part 2
4. What I've Learned: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
Interlude (2)
5. What I Would Do: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Earlier this week, United Methodist Bishop and renowned author William Willimon wrote the following on his blog:

Unfortunately, I fear that most of us pastors think of ourselves as caregivers to the congregation, maintainers of the status quo, rather than agents of change.--Link to blog post

In a discussion earlier this week, this post came to mind. Several of us were talking about the difference between church planter-type pastors and parish-type pastors. It may very well be that the practical difference is found in that very quote. Or, as Bill Easum used to describe it- it is possible to have too many gifts of mercy for the job you are doing. Or, as Jim Collins talks about in Good to Great, you have to get the wrong people off the bus and the right people on in order to move to greatness. We don't like to do that. We don't want to leave anyone out.

The same kind of distinctions may very well be in place for the difference between leaders and managers. As we continue to look at the issue, we are on shaky ground. We are, in many ways moving away from the training that most clergy have had. Most training is a professional education to do a particular type of job. Feed the hungry, visit the sick, kind of things. That has become, as we talked about in a much earlier post, the definition of being a pastor. Add a little bit of good theological education, put a dash of church history, stir in Clinical Pastoral Education and there you have it.

Pastor. The Expert. The Hired Hand to do The Job.

Nothing wrong with that in theory. But it certainly based on Jesus' ministry. I know I have covered this in other posts but I bring it back in here because it would inform and guide my attempts, if I went back into parish ministry, to live it differently. In order to do that one of the things I will be required (by my own needs) to do is find a spiritual director and a coach. They could be one and the same, but II will want to utilize the coach in specific leadership and development ways and a spiritual director as a guide along the spiritual road that must be walked through the whole thing. If I can find someone who can do both, all the better. It will allow for a deeper and broader intergration.

I have learned that outside support is critical to a personal ministry that is growing. An outside coach and spiritual director can often see through the pains and acute tensions of a situation and ask the right questions. Never, never do I have enough resources in myself to do it. Never, never do I have all the insights and answers. I need to be able to admit that and look for those people around me. Support is not an option. It is non-negotiable. Professionals, non-professionals, friends, even strangers.

I have a close friend that I have been doing this with for 19 years now. We now live over 320 miles apart, but once in a while, if too much time goes by, we meet at a restaurant 160 miles from each of us. He is a supportive friend I couldn't live without. Other friends are contacted on the phone. Other people are at my support meetings. At another point in my ministry I was part of other support groups through the greater church. Non-negotiable.

Last week I commented that if all this were possible we wouldn't need God. The real underlying importance of that statement is not that we need God, but that we need to know what God wants us to do and then seek the proper power to do it. We all pay a lot of lip service to that idea but in our actions and realities of daily life we often behave differently. That's why one of the things I would seek to do differently were I to re-enter the ministry is to seek more and broader ways to introduce spiritual disciplines to the church I am serving. That says Alan Roxburgh is an essential part of being missional.

From Alan Roxburgh's Journal comes this:

Growing numbers of leaders are aware that missional change is not primarily about techniques and programs. It’s about culture or worldview change... The question is: How does this kind of disciplined culture change occur? there is one element that does seem common to those leaders who sustain themselves on the way - they are rooted in some form of regular spiritual practices... but .. the vast majority of church leaders have no daily form of Christian practice or formation in their own lives.

To live and grow together as a missional congregation/community the practice of Christian formation is one I would seek to develop. There are countless ways that such formation has been done over the centuries. We are rediscovering many of them in new ways today. The modern semi-monastic movements, praying the Daily Hours, quiet contemplative retreats- these and many more work to strengthen the community and keep us aimed at God and the world beyond our own doors.

I said I would talk a little about denominationalism...well- I guess that will wait for another week.

Keeping the Strength

Galatians 6:9-10 -- Let us not become weary in doing good, for at the proper time we will reap a harvest if we do not give up. Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers.

Sometimes I wonder if Paul was like me (and many other preachers, I assume) who work out some of their own issues as they wrestle with sermons. Paul's words about not becoming weary in doing good might very well give us an insight into some of where he has been at some time or place in his own work. Day in and day out can become a drudgery. There were, I am sure, plenty of days when things weren't falling into place as quickly or as fully as he anticipated.

At those points I am sure the only way he kept up his spirits was through the Spirit reminding him of what this is all about- the harvest that is to be reaped. Sometimes, when the gains are smaller, the movement slower, the time not seeming to fall into rhythm, you have to- you MUST remember the long-term big picture. If what we see is all there is to see, well, sure, we are going to slow down or get discouraged. But if there is something more, something beyond our sight at the moment, a vision of something greater and more glorious, well, maybe I can get out of bed and start putting that one foot in front of the other.

The BIG picture. The greater good, is how a friend of mine once described it. "What serves the greater good?" he asked me when I was trying to make a decision. Look beyond yourself and the place where you are starting. Look within to the possibilities that exist. Look above to the Creator and try to see how all this fits together. Look around and see where the needs are. Put them all together and you just might find the greater good.

And while you are waiting for that to happen- or even to become clear- do good to all. Do good to all. It seems odd that Paul had to remind them to do that for their own "family of believers." Perhaps the conflicts and disagreements that beset many churches were at work. Perhaps some were ignoring the poorer members in their "household." Today those might be the first to get the support. In the BIG picture, though, Paul is reminding us that we just do good to all.

That is how you get through the low times, the tiring times, the weariness of doing what you are doing. Do good to all. Get out of yourself and reach out with love and care to others. Sometimes it may take some effort, but it will work.

What If I Went Back?
What I Would Do (6)
Section One of this series dealt with what I miss now that I am doing "secular" ministry after thirty years as a parish pastor. Section Two was about what I don't miss. Section Three was talking about "secular ministry." Section Four looked at what I've learned in these three years in "secular ministry."
Links to earlier sections:
Introduction
1. What I Miss: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
2. What I Don't Miss: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
Interlude (1)
3. Secular Ministry: Part 1, Part 2
4. What I've Learned: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
Interlude (2)
5. What I Would Do: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
We are talking a shift here about the role of leadership in the church. Part of this comes from the shift I talked about many weeks ago- the shift from official Christendom to this post-Christendom world where Christianity is back to where it started in many ways- one of many wrestling for attention and the following of people. In our average church- denomination or local congregation- that has not been absorbed very well.

That means that the pastor of a local church, if he or she is to help bring that church into a new place, will have to be a change leader. Or more to the point, perhaps, truly be a leader, and not a manager. Servant leadership makes sense. Servant management doesn't. Not when we are trying to shift things.

John Kotter in his book Leading Change gives a good breakdown between managers and leaders:

Managers:
Plan and Budget
Organize and Staff
Control and Problem Solve
This leads to predictability and order and the short-term results expected by those who are the stakeholders.

On the other hand we have:

Leaders:
Establish Direction
Align People
Motivate and Inspire
This leads to change.

To manage or to lead, that is the question. Nope, that is not a question at all. Not if one is missional. That is the question only if the status quo is what we want to maintain. That is the question if the pastor and leaders are there to serve the congregation alone or their denomination alone. (Maybe a little bit about denominationalism at a later point, but not here.)

If you want to take it a step further, leaders see a different set of stakeholders, or even for that matter a different Stakeholder. Management sees those who pay your salary; leaders see who called you. Management is institutionalism personified; leadership is mission in action.

One of the problems Kotter talks about is complacency. He says, for example, in essence that when complacency is at work the fights and arguments tend to be inward, aimed at each other. Complacency comes from

Arrogance- we know, they don't.
Insularity- separate classes of people
Bureaucracy- organize, organize, organize.

These do not produce change programs that will be anything but DOA. Complacency is the result, for example, of the attitudes of Christendom- the melding of church and secular culture, where everyone was a Christian and expected to be loyal to the church- even if they weren't Christian. It is the equating of culture and/or state with the Christian faith. You will be complacent at that point since you don't have to do anything. Or you direct your mission efforts beyond the culture- overseas, for example, in order to bring them to faith. We don't need it.\

Leadership in the post-Christian/pre-Christian world cannot be about management. It must be about the mission of God in our midst. It must lead us to see what we can be doing and how the opportunities for mission are beyond counting.

If all we do is manage, we are trying to save the institution. That is never enough. Here is a quote from Seth Godin's book, Survival is Not Enough (p.204 - 205) thanks to an article in Jeff Patton's newsletter:

How can you motivate a group of successful people to give up their point of view before it is too late? In many cases you can’t. They are too fat, too happy, too sure that they know how to do it and that there are no other right answers. These are at an evolutionary dead end, and their DNA has calcified. They want to be serfs so let them.

Create teams of naive novices, people who bring a beginner’s mind to a problem. They haven’t figured out all the ways that are impossible, so they ‘re far more likely to come up with solutions that are bad...and then motivated enough to evolve those solutions into ones that work.

There's a lot of wisdom in that last paragraph. A beginner's mind. Come at it with wide-eyed wonder, not a sight blurred by dullness and the way it has always been. Such leadership needs to keep working through all the things that don't work until the things that do work begin to show through. Such leadership is dangerous- and may even be fatal in some established churches. One must have a vision and be able to share it from the depths of one's heart and soul. Then, as Bill Easum would say, watch for the twinkle in someone else's eyes- and grab them.

It may be easier to do this in new church starts. But unless the people coming into the church plant are new, naive novices, chances are it may end up looking like a variation of what has gone before. Pretty soon the complacency will set in and well, we don't need more complacent churches. We need more missional ones.

If I went back I would want to make this as absolutely clear as possible from the word "Go!" It is not fair to pull a bait and switch by holding back on this and then saying, after the furniture is all moved in, "By the way, I'm not going to do it that way." Share the vision. Live the vision. It is essential to be transparent. In an established church it would probably take more time than I have left in ministry to get it done. Not that it can't be started and the DNA re-engineered. Sure it can.

And of course if I could do it, I wouldn't need God in the process.

But that, like denominationalism is for another week.

What If I Went Back?
What I Would Do (5)
Section One of this series dealt with what I miss now that I am doing "secular" ministry after thirty years as a parish pastor. Section Two was about what I don't miss. Section Three was talking about "secular ministry." Section Four looked at what I've learned in these three years in "secular ministry."
Links to earlier sections:
Introduction
1. What I Miss: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
2. What I Don't Miss: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
Interlude (1)
3. Secular Ministry: Part 1, Part 2
4. What I've Learned: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
Interlude (2)
5. What I Would Do: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

It is interesting that I find myself having difficulty getting into the topic of leadership as I see what I would do if I went back into parish ministry. My difficulty is based simply on the fact that it is hard to conceive of going into an established church and trying to be anything but what they want- unless of course you feel called to be a change agent- or a martyr. So in order to back into the topic I want to approach it from a more non-specific angle. This week I will come at the general topic for the type of leadership I would want to give and foster. The change part will come later.

It seems obvious from looking at what Jesus said and did that the most faithful style of leadership is the one that has come to be known as "servant leadership." This is a person-centered approach to leading. It has been around for a long time but has only recently been seen as a specific leadership style. Here's what Wikipedia has to say:

Servant leadership is an approach to leadership development, coined and defined by Robert Greenleaf and advanced by several authors such as Stephen Covey, Peter Block, Peter Senge, Max De Pree, Margaret Wheatley, Ken Blanchard, John Sullivan, and others. Servant-leadership emphasizes the leader's role as steward of the resources (human, financial and otherwise) provided by the organization. It encourages leaders to serve others while staying focused on achieving results in line with the organization's values and integrity.
--Link

As I see it, servant leadership in the church is to follow the ethics, style, and direction of Jesus. That sounds so straightforward and intuitive that it is hard to think of any way to disagree with it. But in practice that is not the style of the church and probably hasn't been for quite a few centuries. For lots of good and bad reasons the idea of leadership in the church has been more hierarchical or tyrannical with a hierarchy or tyranny of both clergy and/or lay people possible depending on the particular theology or history of the church.

To live that out in a church is not an easy task. Clergy have been misused and abused by churches through low-pay, incredibly impossible demands on them, or lack of free or family time for generations. They justify is through saying the clergy is to be a "servant." Vice versa there are clergy who abuse and misuse their leadership by insisting that the lay people are their servants by being the "earthly ambassador" for Christ or any of a number of different theological constructs. In short to be a servant is usually to be misused and abused.

In contrast Jesus-led servant leadership is far more proactive. A servant is not a slave. A servant is not to be mistreated. A servant is to do the work of the master- and in the church the master is neither the pastor nor the congregation. The Master is God. So first and foremost a servant leader knows the mission and helps live it. In that moment the servant leader knows that it is not about them and their power. It is about the growth of the mission of God and their commitment to it.

All well and good. But there has to be more. In searching the Web this past week I found a series of questions that according to its authors are a way of checking whether you are or have been a servant leader. Note as you read it that this is from a state university in a secular setting. It is not from within the history or theology of the church. But it sure could be....

• Do people believe that you are willing to sacrifice your own self-interest for the good of the group?
• Do people believe that you want to hear their ideas and will value them?
• Do people believe that you will understand what is happening in their lives and how it affects them?
• Do people come to you when the chips are down or when something traumatic has happened in their lives?
• Do others believe that you have a strong awareness for what is going on?
• Do others follow your requests because they want to as opposed to because they “have to”?
• Do others communicate their ideas and vision for the organization when you are around?
• Do others have confidence in your ability to anticipate the future and its consequences?
• Do others believe you are preparing the organization to make a positive difference in the world?
• Do people believe that you are committed to helping them develop and grow?
• Do people feel a strong sense of community in the organization that you lead?

--Link-University of Nebraska-Lincoln

The authors, John E. Barbuto, Jr. and Daniel W. Wheeler, Extension Leadership Development Specialists for the University, could have been describing what we have traditionally called "ministry." Yet we can see where that has fallen apart with the questions on community, the openness of others to share their visions, preparing to make a positive difference in the world and not just in the church, and people following because they want to not because they feel coerced or forced. This kind of give-and-take openness isn't any more common in the church than it is in the business world. Yet it is essential.

In this postModern world it has become a non-negotiable. One of the things about the world around us is that people are less and less willing to accept leadership based on simple position, authority, or degrees. Leadership is followed when it is earned. Loyalty is to those who exhibit true and open leadership and is withheld from those who don't. "Because I'm the boss" is no longer as good a reason to do it as it is to look for a new job. The leader has to be willing to risk and share their vision and bring the people on board.

On one of my recent travels I listened to a CD of a servant leadership training session by James Hunter. The CD was subtitled "achieving success through character, bravery & influence." In one section he commented on this change in leadership acceptance by saying that today most people don't quit their job- "they quit their supervisor." Many will not remain in a job where they are treated poorly or misused and abused even for better pay. It may work for a while but it won't stick.

Perhaps that is one of the lessons we in the church haven't learned. Perhaps it isn't that people have left "the church" but rather the human institutional leadership style. When old traditions are more important than the mission, when the feelings of long-dead members still control the decisions, when lay and clergy seek to have their will done at the expense of other people's visions, people will leave.

Now no one is perfect. Even the best servant leaders make mistakes all the time. They step on toes, they ignore a vision, they get bogged down in institutionalism. In spite of the long history of servant leadership in the teachings of Jesus people like St. Francis are few and far between. The rest of us have to work on it daily, prayerfully, and very intentionally. A place to start is with that series of questions that delineate the characteristics of servant leadership. To ask those questions on a regular basis, to hold them up as a guidepost toward greater fulfillment of the life of Jesus in our common life will bring us all a little closer to living a little more often like Jesus.

That's the theory and theology. That's the easy part. As one of my youth group once responded in a Jesus-based values discussion- everyone knows what Jesus would do. I just might not be able to do it. But that's for next week.

What If I Went Back?
What I Would Do (4)
Section One of this series dealt with what I miss now that I am doing "secular" ministry after thirty years as a parish pastor. Section Two was about what I don't miss. Section Three was talking about "secular ministry." Section Four looked at what I've learned in these three years in "secular ministry."
Links to earlier sections:
Introduction
1. What I Miss: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
2. What I Don't Miss: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
Interlude (1)
3. Secular Ministry: Part 1, Part 2
4. What I've Learned: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
Interlude (2)
5. What I Would Do: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I originally said I was going to talk about leadership this week. Well, I think I need to take a further look at worship. It seems my friend Greg commented on last Thursday's installment of "What If I Went Back?" posting. He raised some issues that reminded me that I hadn't dealt deeply enough with worship. Here's Greg's comment...

I had heard that the early church was a place where the faithful gathered to celebrate their faith in community. It was an acknowledgment of commonly held beliefs, yes, but more importantly an acknowledgment of common Christian practice.
In other words, church wasn't a "weekly filling station" where the faithful got enough fuel to last them all week.

I know I haven't invoked the "Early Church" as a reference for much of what I have written anywhere in this series. So Greg's comments bring me to the point of having to say something about it. I am not a First Century Church Scholar so most of what I'm going to say is based more on intuition than on study. So, let me jump in with my thoughts and opinions.

It would seem to me that there was not a single "First Century Church" style. It varied, I am sure with the leaders and ethnicity. The Gentile communities worshiped differently from the Jewish communities. That is clear from the arguments reported in Acts between those who insisted on the old Jewish ways and those who were willing to admit the Gentiles without circumcision. So the first thing to remember is that the styles differed by the community- a common ground that we share with them in this age that is far more diverse than any place since the First Century Rome. In other words it is not about the style of worship- it has to be something more.

Which brings me to Greg's reminder that the often heard comment about coming to church to get refueled for the week may not be the whole story- or even a very large part of the story. This gets to the very heart of what worship is to be. The "refueling station" concept is one that grows out of the individualism of our modern American civilization. "I" come to church for "my" benefit. It makes "me" feel better. It fits the individual (personal) salvation model that underlies much western Protestant thought, even outside the more conservative and evangelical circles. Church is all about "me" and "mine."

I don't believe that was the focus of the First Century Church's worship. It was about the community. It was the opportunity for the community to get together. It was the time to remember that it wasn't all about "me." It's about God and "us."

A number of things actually do occur in worship- and one of them is the "refueling" for the week ahead. But it's not for "me" to have strength. It is so that "we" can be strengthened and empowered to go do mission as community. The mission is always the motivating force of all that the church does. It is even part of what happens in worship. "We" are refueled- empowered- by worship because
we pray together
we hear God's Word together
we learn together
we confess our shortcomings together
we experience forgiveness together
we sing and praise together and, in short,
we are community together.

I would find it essential that when planning a worship service these elements be kept in mind. Somehow or another, depending on styles, traditions (or lack of them), culture, and so on, these are part and parcel of who we are as a church and therefore of our worship together. Which may be why, in the long term, the sweetened, self-centered styles of worship may feel good for a while, but will in the end discover they have lost the true center of worship- the mission of God.

The more I think about worship, the more convinced I become of this unbreakable connection. It is at the very center of Judeo-Christian worship, for example. Being God's People is what worship expressed. Not being God's individual person who happens to be sitting next to another of God's individual persons singing the same song or daydreaming during the same prayer. Those interconnections make community and become the very incarnation of Jesus in our world.

Greg is right- it is faith expressed in community, in the practice of worship in community, and ultimately the faith of the community lived and practiced in the world.

So, next week, on to leadership issues.

A Sunday Thought

Luke 7:47 - Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven—for she loved much. But he who has been forgiven little loves little."

The depth of that comment is almost limitless. The power of its truth is probably inffinite. The success of its change to a person's life is the other side of miraculous.

Listen to the words of Amazing Grace without your own sentimental attachment. Then remember the former slavetrader writing those words in incredible gratitude.

Amazing grace, how sweet the sound
That sav’d a wretch like me!
I once was lost, but now I'm found
Was blind but now I see.

Listen to the words of It Is Well With My Soul. Hear the deep cry of pain relieved by love.

My sin, oh, the bliss of this glorious thought!
My sin, not in part but the whole,
Is nailed to the cross, and I bear it no more,
Praise the Lord, praise the Lord, O my soul!

Listen to the words of Just As I Am. Then know the joy of these words of a person who was an invalid from age 30 through the rest of her life?

Just as I am, Thy love unknown
Hath broken every barrier down;
Now, to be Thine, yea, Thine alone,
O Lamb of God, I come, I come.

Simply put, that's what Jesus is talking about. What a thought!

And I wonder if we have lost too much of that awareness. All the things that have been part of who we are as followers of Jesus can get lost in our modern world. Especially for those of us in the mainline tradition. Have we gotten lost in our frantic efforts to stay alive, to make a difference, to feel relevant and important? And in that lostness have we forgotten what it is we are always all about? Love, and meaning, and hope, and an honest and exciting challenge to come up with the wisdom of life?

The following came across the computer on Thursday and I thought it would be a good way to end this. I have a hunch that underneath what Diana Butler Bass is saying, is that by losing so much of what makes us who we are, we have also lost the power of love. At least, that's one of my takes on it.

What Makes a Thriving Mainline Church When Many are Dying?

At a time when most mainline denominations are continuing to experience consecutive drops in membership, a critically acclaimed author presented what actually makes a mainline church thrive, The Christian Post reports. Diana Butler Bass, scholar and author of Christianity for the Rest of Us, presented some of her findings on thriving churches. Successful congregations: cultivate spiritual practices in daily life, promote tradition without using it as a fence to keep people out, and offer a quest for wisdom as opposed to pat answers. Butler Bass studied thriving congregations in the Episcopal Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, United Methodist Church, Presbyterian Church (USA), Disciples of Christ and United Church of Christ. "[M]illions of people would choose mainline denominations if we gave them something worth choosing," she opined.

--Crosswalk Religion Today Summary, 6/14/07

What If I Went Back?
What I Would Do (3)
Section One of this series dealt with what I miss now that I am doing "secular" ministry after thirty years as a parish pastor. Section Two was about what I don't miss. Section Three was talking about "secular ministry." Section Four looked at what I've learned in these three years in "secular ministry."
Links to earlier sections:
Introduction
1. What I Miss: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
2. What I Don't Miss: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
Interlude (1)
3. Secular Ministry: Part 1, Part 2
4. What I've Learned: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
Interlude (2)
5. What I Would Do: Part 1, Part 2
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Time now to think about preaching- the proclamation of the Word. It is fairly obvious from the Book of Acts as well as Paul's letters that preaching goes back to about as early a stage in the church as there is. Or, more to the point, the proclamation of the Word goes back that far. I am not enough of a Biblical scholar to know what the real difference is between what they did and what we tend to do. But somehow it seems to me that there is something quite different.

I think we can actually see that difference when we compare the "sermons" recorded in Acts and the fairly wide content of the different letters. The sermons tended to be given as an explanation of Jesus and the Good News, most often for those who were outside the church. They often included an outline of what we call salvation history in a kind of proof development. Peter's sermon in Acts 2 is the first such example, but far from the last. There is a formality to such things.

The letters are more like dissertations on Scripture. They seek to explain and dig and interpret the Word for people who are already within the church. While they may seem formal to us in style and language, they had a much more informal and less rigid style.

I have a hunch that there was a third style that is often referred to as being "devoted to the Apostle's teaching." They didn't have formal preachers. They didn't have formal teachers. They didn't even have informal ones- at least not in the way we think about them. It was not "The Expert" informing "The Unknowing" about the Word. It was a community event. It was a give and take. It was one sinner helping another sinner discover salvation.

Which reminds me- again- of the 12 Step movement. I am no longer surprised when I end up back in the AA or NA or Al-Anon rooms when I think about the church and its style. Way back in the earliest years of AA people were noticing the apparent similarities between the fledgling movement and the First Century Church. In essence the 12 Step movement was modeled upon the original small group movement.

You go to a 12 Step meeting and you will find amid all the different styles a basic approach that works quite well. Not perfectly, but overall, quite well. There is the basic text, the big book of Alcoholics Anonymous or whichever group you are attending. They read from portions of it. Some groups read larger portions. Others just the basics of the 12-steps and How It Works. Then they talk about a paricular step, topic, or problem related to being sober. You may or may not have announcements and prayer and concerns. Sometimes there is only a speaker and no discussion. Sometimes you break up into small groups for discussion of the lead or step and sometimes you remain in a large group and some get a chance to share.

But people walk out feeling better than they walked in. They also leave wit a deeper undrestanding of the step or topic. Some meetings will stick to the steps, repeating them every 12 weeks so in a year you will have covered the essentials and heard differing opinions on them 4 times. There is only one primary purpose of these groups- helping those who are still suffering under the effects of addictions. People attend these "religiously" - regularly. Several times a week. Some start recovery by going to 90 meetings in 90 days.

Now I realize this was a long detour but in that detour is, I believe at least a partial answer to the why and how of preaching. It is first and foremost a community event, shared by those who have gathered. Preaching, then, comes out of that life. One of the problems I have often seen with some preaching styles is that they are often "generic" or evangelistic. I think it is essential that in this postModern age such contextual opportunities for living and preaching the word become standard. Pastors cannot be "The Experts" who give "The Word". They are the mediators of the Word within the context of the community.

One way to experiment with this is for the pastor to gather a Prayer and Word group to look at the lessons upcoming and reflect on them in the light of the congregation's life and mission and within the greater issue of the missio dei. In that the pastor hears and responds and becomes aware as he or she works on the message how this passage might have an impact. Having personal messages from individuals on particular issues would also add to this. I have a hunch that a broad discussion of this within a congregation could have an impact in ways that we all would be surprised.

Sermons, though, are also ways to reinforce the mission and meaning of the Christian faith on a regular basis. A talk I heard the other day reminded me that of all those attending a workshop only 10% put what they learn into practice. Most have only an inspirational time and then go back to the ways they used to do things. I have a hunch that for many events, 10% may even be too high a number. The speaker commented that this is why he sees it essential to go to church weekly. It is to reinforce the message and build the possibilities of living it in daily life.

He's right. It can be so easy on Wednesday morning to forget how to live as a Christian. The time span from Sunday to then is too great. The way to get to a deeper commitment to growth is repetition. AND to practice the things we learn. One of my discoveries is how much more I have to think about my faith in the secular world. In the church I was surrounded by it day in and day out. Now I know that working in the church isn't a guarantee that one will be more faithful, but at least I thought about it more often.

So preaching for me, then, would attempt to be intentional about sharing the Word within the context of the community and the communities needs. Then it would be to reinforce the calling of each of us to live as Christ-followers in what we do all week. Somehow in this there may also need to be the opportunity to reflect and discuss about our own lives, but that is a response to the sermon, not the sermon itself.

As I wrote this I wondered how different this might be from what I used to do. From feedback I have received over the years, I think this has been my style for most of my ministry. But I can't say I was intentional about it. The intention now would be to reinforce the mission, not to make people just feel better. It would be the ongong challenge to see everything within the life of the church as going in that single, missional direction.

Next week I'll jump into the fray of leadership, management, and how to work in a church.

All About Food
A wonderful and mission-challenging book has captured me. Sara Miles has given an unusual and powerful conversion story in Take This Bread. Sara is an unlikely convert to Christianity. For lots of reasons you would not expect someone like her to do so. Let's see- she's a lesbian living in a committed relationship with her daughter. She is liberal. She is feisty. She is challenging. And she was hooked by the bread.

Yes, the Eucharist, the Lord's Supper, Holy Communion. Who says there isn't a "real presence" of Jesus at that Table? Who says it isn't an act of grace- in action? Sara was captured against her will- but not against her spirit into a community of Christians who did things differently but effectively. When she got there she found that the Bread is more than bread. It is life. And then it became Jesus' life to the surrounding community in mission. It is a story that will hook you and at the end you will be convinced you smell the aroma of fresh bread reminding you that Jesus has NOT left the room.

What If I Went Back?
What I Would Do (2)
Section One of this series dealt with what I miss now that I am doing "secular" ministry after thirty years as a parish pastor. Section Two was about what I don't miss. Section Three was talking about "secular ministry." Section Four looked at what I've learned in these three years in "secular ministry."
Links to earlier sections:
Introduction
1. What I Miss: Part 1, part 2, part 3
2. What I Don't Miss: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
Interlude (1)
3. Secular Ministry: Part 1, Part 2
4. What I've Learned: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
Interlude (2)
5. What I Would Do: Part 1
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I preached on Sunday, substituting for my pastor who was celebrating with his daughter on her graduation from high school. How easily one falls into the rhythm and mode of leading worship. Of course it is the church where I am a member and you know generally the routine and flow of the service. But you still look out and get an energy as you preach and look at their faces and hope you're reaching their souls.

Which takes me to going back, part 2. How would I do worship differently than before? What would my preaching look like? This makes me think of the development over the past decade or so of "seeker-sensitive" worship and whether that is what we should be about in worship. The goal of the mega-church developed seeker sensitivity is attarctiveness. It is, as is being described in some circles as "attractional" church (as opposed to "missional" church.) It's purpose has been to make worship "friendly and familiar" to non-Christians, to the "seekers" who are looking for something but still haven't found what they are looking for.

Hence seeker sensitive worship was often about looks and the surface of theology. In the larger churches the more "in-depth" worship for those who are further along in their faith was held on another night of the week. Things like Holy Communion may even be reserved for the non- seeker sensitive worship. It seems to me that such a set-up is a good way to develop a hierarchy of worshippers, a class system.

This attractional view of church presupposes that people have to come to us. We have to be attractive to them. When they walk in they have to feel comfortable. So we make it easy to understand and try not to struggle with hard questions. We may present a happy, smiley-faced worship. Obviously (?), this isn't wrong- to a point. But one of those points is that it easily turns into a bait-and-switch.

A number of years ago a friend of mine was attending one of these seeker-sensitive mega-church worship experiences. He was not a newcomer to the faith and had a deep and missional faith. He liked the worship, it's music, the preaching, the atmosphere. It was moving, and did provide more than the basic superficial stuff. But obviously not as much as was under the surface. After a few years he and his wife decided that they would explore joining. Now, all of a sudden they were presented with a lot of things they never knew before. There were requirements that were seldom if ever publicly shared. Once you joined there were rules, rules, and more rules. Once you wanted to be on the "inside" things changed. They left. Not because they were afraid of commitment, but because they felt misled.

I can agree that they should change. If one makes that committment to Jesus and his community discipleship comes along with it. That means living out the mission. But in these type of settings they are often church-directed, institution-driven, not discipleship building. And there was never a hint of these things to come at any time before they expressed a desire to join. Jesus wasn't worried about such attractionalism. He made it clear about having to carry yokes and walk narrow paths- although he also promised that such yokes and paths would be easier because they were his and not those of the world.

The worship service needs to express the mission, life, and needs of the church and community. It must represent the fullness of life in Jesus and the fullness of the life of the congregation. What you see is what you should get. Which means that the style, mode, feeling, and direction of worship must reflect the unique circumstances of the congregation's mission. Therefore it will be different in each church- within whatever liturgical, non-liturgical, historical, non-historical tradition that the congregation is part of.

It will also be determined by the size. One of the powerful moments in our cogregation's worship is the prayer time. All kinds of concerns are raised- joy and fear, celebration and sadness. There was one week when I was in a deep and sorrowful time right after we realized that our friend Sue was losing her battle with cancer. I was restless for three days waiting to get to church to have her in prayer time. It was an essential mission of the church and I needed to participate for Sue (and all of her family and friends.)

That won't work in the same way in a worship service with 200 or more people. It is often tried, but just as often feels out of place. The same would go for testimony, witness, and updates on mission that is happening. Some churches have used technology well to highlight these; others the old tried and true standing up and talking. The amount of "insider knowledge" that is necessary in order to appreciate what is happening can be a drawback.

Which comes back to the seeker-sensitivity. I'm not sure that what we want is to "dumb-down" what we do, but rather "open-up" what we do. This is actually an issue of postModern culture. As I have commented earlier the culture is no longer steeped in the language and rituals of Christendom. We can no longer assume that people have even a basic knowledge of what Christianity is. We absolutely must be aware that people may be completely lost when we begin to use big fancy words.

I think we often need to keep the words- and expand and unpack them. For example, there is power in the word Eucharist. It is an ancient power that can build into a life-changing understanding. We shouldn't lose it. But we can't assume that people know it, either. To build the unpacking into the service can be done quite unobtrusively with a welcoming attitude leading into the experience. We can do the same for things like "baptism" or doctrines like "Trinity" or "repentance". Yes, it may take some work on the part of worship leaders, but if they are listening to the people and paying attention to the culture it can be a redeeming (there's another word) experience.

Again, all this is built around the mission of the community as it incarnates the Missio Dei, the mission of God in their community. Tale a look around the Internet for "Missional" or "Emergent" churches for some examples. Better yet, maybe each of us should sit down with our brothers and sisters and see how we would describe- in a worship experience- the life of God's mission in our own midst.

What If I Went Back?
What I Would Do (1)
Section One of this series dealt with what I miss now that I am doing "secular" ministry after thirty years as a parish pastor. Section Two was about what I don't miss. Section Three was talking about "secular ministry." Section Four looked at what I've learned in these three years in "secular ministry."
Links to earlier sections:
Introduction
1. What I Miss: Part 1, part 2, part 3
2. What I Don't Miss: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3