Whoa. I might actually…JOIN a church club if they did something like that.

I wonder what would happen if an eldership/ministry staff spent a year teaching a congregtion about God’s call to care for the poor and disadvantaged, then after that year, they told the church that they are going to sell the church property and tend to the poor by creating shelters, job readyness courses, food pantries, etc. I fear that many in that congregation would choose to find another, more conventional expression of their faith at that point. Would the eldership be wrong to make that move?

1. In the matter of church discipline (Matthew 18)
2. In the matter of choosing whether to serve Jesus or not (Luke 14)

We are clearly shown that these weighty matters justify the separation of believers: even if it’s painful, it must be done. But in the matter of choosing what our strategy is going to be? That seems to be a stretch, a nod to efficiency, a desire not to be held back by “those recalcitrants,” a form of pin-your-ears-back urgency that neither the Gospels nor the Epistles seems to convey to us.

In musing over this whole idea, the thought occurred to me that no shepherd in Jesus’ mold would be content simply to let some sheep wander off to God-knows-where (Luke 15) without some bona fide effort to reach them, communicate with them, listen to their hearts. “Addition by subtraction” is euphemistic language for, “we’re probably better off without you anyway.”

Of course, no shepherd has standing to prohibit someone from moving on if that is his/her conviction and intention. But simply to let him/her go without challenging his/her decision with a pastoral heart just seems contrary to the spirit of John 10:1ff, Luke 15 etc.

qb

We’ve heard “missional” — and that we’ll be different, and many won’t be comfortable — but much of the new church-speak is unintelligible to those of us who don’t attend the right conferences/seminars. Is this language common at Willow Creek and Zoe functions? (The people speaking this new “phraseology” have those groups in common…)

Coded language IS a cult characteristic…and those of us who haven’t read “the right” books or attended “the right” conferences, are left to wonder whether our “family” wants us to leave, or is just indifferent to our staying….

“Go with God” is code for “Here’s your hat. What’s your hurry?”

Yes, God’s greater good is of utmost importance…but if the hairs on my head are numbered, surely He cares about me as an individual, too.

Shouldn’t His church?

John — I think we’re on the same page now. I agree that change must be conducted delicately, but it must be conducted. We must not fear it, and we must be willing to move forward as God directs (even when some do not share that vision). Thanks for this engaging dialogue, man.

Your passion is absolutely inspiring to me, and I’m terribly proud of you.

And I won’t mention that I was your 9th grade Bible teacher and high school chaplain, either, because that would look like I was trying to take partial credit for who you’re turning out to be. So I won’t do that.

Anyway, I love that you “get worked up about this stuff.” Thanks for challenging my thinking.

Blessings.

I don’t necessarily disagree with the move to become more missional (which I think is bad terminology, but we’re stuck with it). My problem is that there seems to be a common thread in the more progressive end of thinking that comes across as, “You poor misguided soul, you’ve done church wrong for so many years. Let me lead you toward the light. If you’re unwilling to move in this direction, you can go find a new church.” Change is very necessary, but should be handled very carefully (and preferably without words like ecclesiologically). I have lived in several communities where a church has undergone a major personality and mission change. Each of them handled it poorly, and there were a lot of hard feelings for a long time. Some of that is unavoidable, but a good bit of it could be avoided by more understanding and better explanation of reasoning.

As a fallen human being, I am generally an arrogant person. I constantly battle against this ungodly pride and am praying for deliverance. Praise be to God that his grace covers over our fallenness and compells us to transformation. That said, my words certainly were not meant to be condescending, but merely a reflection of where God has been taking me (and many others) ecclesiologically and missionally.

I don’t believe, however, that anything I wrote is inconsistent with the findings of many who have studied contemporary churches and faith in North America. That’s where we get the term “nominal Christian” — “by name only.” Nominal Christians do view church as event rather than family, and this is supported by the findings of George Barna, among others. Is Highland full of nominal Christians? I don’t know. But I do know that many times, we must re-examine our forms in order to rediscover our function. Let me speak autobiographically: I can talk about “being church” and “incarnational ministry” all day long, but I still fall back into the mindset of a “Sunday-Wednesday” Christian so easily. I don’t think I’m all alone on this one. (in fact, I think Christians all over America — especially younger generations — are crying out for release from this bondage of “Churchianity”…)

As for taking seriously the Ephesians 4 exhortation to allow “each part to do its work,” I again think this is a situation where churches can talk out of both sides of their mouths. On one side, they are saying that “we are all ministers and every person must use his or her gift.” On the other side, we have professionals who do are hired to do evangelism (outreach minister) or fulfill any number of additional roles, all but cancelling out the former statement. What’s more, the shear size of most churches today does not lend itself to even the recognization of church members’ gifts, let alone their utilization. Most folks are lost in the fray, and the structures of many churches create this separation between “those who minister” and “those who are ministered to,” whether this is their intention or not. (please hear me saying that churches DO have leadership, but I see N.T. leadership functioning in very different ways than what we have now)

My comment on the “76-year-old church” is not meant in any way to diminish the ways in which God has used Highland over that time period. I love the Highland church. I work for one of her elders. I pray for Highland. One of the things that has set Highland apart for the last 76 years has been the willingness of its leaders to hear God’s voice and obey His calling for the congregation, even when it is not the culturally popular thing to do. The “missional” conversation is another example of this, and I want to see the leadership move in the direction they see God moving them, regardless of whether or not it looks exactly like what they’ve had for 76 years. I am arguing that this “missional move” not merely be program addition or “the next best thing,” but seriously examine the identity of Christ’s church as a missional people.

OK, OK, I get worked up about this stuff, and I probably should have left out the “so-called Christians” part. I apologize. All I’m getting at with that comment is that the North American church has grossly undershot what it means to be a disciple of Jesus. Discipleship has become easy. Someone called this “cheap grace.” We tell people that their lives will begin to make sense and cohere if they trust Jesus, when in reality Jesus should completely wreck their lives. If we really took Christ’s words and life seriously, we wouldn’t have nearly as many who claim the name of Christian. For a good description of this phenomenon, check out Shane Claiborne’s great book, The Irresistible Revolution: Living as an Ordinary Radical. Claiborne grew up in the church in Western Tennessee, but said he didn’t truly experience conversion or discover Christianity until he immersed himself in the slums of Calcutta and cared for lepers in India. Claiborne is a much-needed prophet to the church today.

Again, as a broken human being, my arrogance is often apparent. I apologize for this arrogance, and can only say that I am praying for deliverance. I apologize if my words came off as such, but I cannot apologize for my desire to see the church restored to truly follow Christ into the world. Like Tony Campolo has said, many of us have largely missed the point.

“If Highland makes the ‘missional move,’ people are going to leave. They’ll leave because church as they knew it will be over. It’s going to get messy and unpredictable. Church will be perceived less as ‘event’ and more as ‘family.’ Highland members will stop viewing a piece of property as ‘where ministry happens’ and begin to see neighborhoods, parks, supermarkets, Kiwanis Club meetings, homeless tent cities, and schools as the mission fields.”

Assuming you know what’s going on inside the heads of others is the beginning of a giant downfall. I don’t attend a church that is missional (at least as the label is used here), but I sure don’t view church as an “event”. I firmly believe that 99% (maybe 95% where Mike preaches) of ministry occurs anywhere BUT our building. Our church doesn’t need to be turned on its ear to believe that.

“Ministry and missions will return to the hands of ‘ordinary church folks’ instead of remaining the job of professional ministers. In other words, the church will ‘grow and build itself up in love, as each part does its work,’ as Paul wrote to the Ephesians.”

I would bet Mike has preached that message on more than one occasion. The fact that enough people aren’t pulling their weight doesn’t mean you simply cut them loose. What happens five years from now when half of the new “missional” converts aren’t pulling their weight?

“A 76-year-old church will begin to move out to the margins, where the people Jesus cares for most reside.”

I don’t know if you understand this, but you’ve just diminished 76 years in the history of a good church. Maybe I shouldn’t take it personally, since I’ve never been to Highland, but I would imagine they do a lot of good in Abilene.

“Worship will be less about tight cues on a snazzy new video or the perfect praise team, and more about ‘all day every day.’”

I would bet that every member who decides to leave Highland would agree with you on that. I will remind you though, that all of those things were done to attract those outside the church in the first place.

“Discipleship will no longer be easy, but it will be rewarding and exciting.”

If it’s easy, you’re not doing it right. It can be rewarding, but that shouldn’t be the motive. If I want exciting, I’ll buy a motorcycle. And it sure sounds like you’re saying that those who aren’t enlightened enough to follow the missional approach aren’t doing it right.

“Yes, many so-called Christians won’t go for the above description of the Christ-life, so they’ll leave Highland.”

But, this one is the kicker. Now those who don’t find the missional pattern (again, as defined in this topic) to be the only way, they are not even real Christians. They’re “so-called Christians”. Who do you think you are?

Regardless of whether this is the best or worst thing for a church to do, there are real people involved. Are there times when it’s better for people to part ways than to live in conflict? Sure there are. But to sit there thinking that those poor people just don’t have the insight that you have is simply arrogant. The disease of thinking your way is the only way is alive and well on BOTH sides of this issue, not just the traditional one.

…Why people leave is awfully complicated. Sometimes it’s not the changes being made that flip the trigger; sometimes it’s the way the changes are made. And sometimes the way changes are made gives people insight as to where leadership is getting its inspiration to change, which has systemic implications; if changes are made out of fear, or big-business sensibilities, or trendiness, or “what the rest of the *successful* churches are doing,” or cosmetics, that certainly reflects on motivation and maturity. Some of these fine Christian people finally say, “I’ve had enough, even after 25 years of pulling loads around here.”

BTW, there’s nothing inherently wrong about wishing to be fed when we assemble. I study on my own, and I read as widely as my priorities permit, and still I sometimes end up being tremendously nourished by an unexpectedly well conceived lesson in Bible class or from the pulpit. I desire that. Is that too much to ask of ourselves and our leadership?

I mean, the choice to graze or not to graze is my own. But perhaps it’s good to be led to fresh pastures now and again.

Sheepishly,

qb