Tomorrow's Church

The Next Evangelicalism

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin) — Wed, 20 May 2009 17:42:00 +0000

I loved this clip - it is a cool opportunity to sit in on a conversation with some great Asian-American Christian thinkers and leaders. Soong Chan had some really cool thoughts to challenge us with, in particular realizing how captive our thinking, our theology and our churches are to Western thought.

I'm definitely adding this to my "to-read" list.

Interview: Soong Chan Rah from Eugene Cho on Vimeo.

The Shaking of All Things

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin) — Thu, 07 May 2009 16:03:00 +0000

This is are really good interview with Mike Breen and Eddie Gibbs - you can watch the rest over on ShapeVine. It has some really good metaphor's for what is happening around us and a lot of thought to chew on afterward. Let me know what you think.

Craig Gross & Being the Church in Sin City

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin) — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 17:19:00 +0000

Thought this was a really cool snippet of what Craig and The Strip Church are doing to be the Church in Las Vegas.

Craig Gross on Ministry in Sin City from Url Scaramanga on Vimeo.

Thoughts...

Interview with author Ron Martoia [Part 2]

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin) — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 12:00:00 +0000

...continued

5. I found in a simple google search a number of overly-demonizing critiques of your work. How do we work to be the change in our church communities and handle the often 'demonizing' accusations of those who disagree?

Yes great question and yes I am a reincarnation of the devil himself apparently according to those website along with a host of others you and I know. I think gentleness is the only road on this one. Stages of human development and faith development tell us that you can't grasp a different level of development other than your own center of gravity. So I don't have hope for others to just jump in head first. But I do think there are some very well place questions we can ask that really put people in a place of evaluating whether or not the Christianity they are defending is the real deal, their personalized construction overlaid with all sorts of baggage, or a modernistic version that has canonized the way we have been doing it the last 200 years as THE way. We have to ask really good questions about the core issues and the outcomes we are getting.

6. Others who criticize your work say you analyze the problems well and it resonates with them, but you offer few solutions. It seems to me that your work intentionally offers a great framework for us to take and adapt in our context and sphere of influence. What do you say?

Well you are apparently the careful reader (lol)! Here is the deal, everyone wants in the box packaged answers. That is a product of the assembly line industrial revolution. We have been doing that for some time. Go to conferences get the in the box small group stuff, or evangelism training package or the usher greeter training kit.... you know what I mean. So people want more of the same. But if we haven't learned anything in the last 100 years haven't we learned that all the in the box programs really haven't brought deep lasting life change? I am convinced that indigeniety is the key. You need some sound processes that you indigenize in your local context in ways that work with who you and your leadership team are for the ethos of your church and the people you are trying to reach. One size does not fit all in fact one size means it fits everyone poorly. So I try and avoid the platitudinous prescriptions that people are always pressing for.

7. If you were asked to boil the whole of Scripture down to its most basic elements, what would those be?

We are imago dei creatures infected as we are, and the good news is that shalom wholeness and wellness is available to every single person which reverses that infection. Our role on the planet is to broker that shalom wholeness and bring everything back to the original edenic state. That includes me, others, and the entire creation.

8. If you could mentor us in only a few sentences, what would you say to young leaders in the church of the U.S?

Don't let anyone convince you to do reruns, do overs or keep doing the way we have always done it. Reflect and seek interior quiet more than you do. Help people navigate liminal space more than pump them full of doctrine. Give up monologue and engage in dialogue. The million dollar skill set into the 21st century will be dealing with great emotional process in your own life and the lives of those around you. It is the #1 I'm being asked about these days and one of the main things I am talking about.

Thank you so much Ron for taking the time to not only answer my questions but also to speak into our lives.

If you haven't read his books, they are a must read on your list. You can find out more about Ron Martoia and some of his current projects on his Velocity Culture site.

Thoughts?

Interview with author Ron Martoia [Part 1]

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin) — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 12:00:00 +0000

I recently got the opportunity to send some questions to Ron Martoia for the benefit of all the readers of Tomorrow's Church. Ron has written a number of books and articles, but his most recent, Transformational Architecture, has been a really good read for me. It is both stimulating and challenging - I highly recomend it. Ron is on a mission to recapture our understanding of God, to be fuller and to help us regain our voice in today's culture. Enjoy.

1. Ron, what has God been speaking to you about lately?

I guess there are a few things that have been occupying my thoughts these days. 1. The need for us to engage a new transformational model of life change. All our information exchange is apparently not getting it done...lives aren't being changed if Gallup and Barna are even close to correct. 2. We need to figure out how to revoice Christianity. By revoice I mean what Karen Armstrong alludes to in The Great Transformation. We are known for being legalistic (think Dave Kinnaman's research in UnChristian) and narrow. How do we revoice and reposition our following Jesus in a way that is inclusive and compelling? 3. I am more convinced than ever we need a blending of kataphatic and apophatic spirituality, in fact this is the focus or the book I am working on right now.

2. For those that have not yet read Static or Transformational Architecture, how would you summarize those works into a couple of sentences.

Static was an effort to deal with 5 big static creating terms and reframe into a larger story the common fall-redemption story so common in evangelicalism, a story that makes it sound like the gospel exists to get people to heaven. Instead I suggest a creation-fall-redemption-restoration paradigm that starts the story of God with imago dei of Gen 1 instead of the fall of Gen 3. Kind of neat to start the story where God starts it huh? TA was an effort to take that bigger framing story and put it on the ground in spiritual conversations. A sort of postmodern...can I say the word....ugh...evangelism. Hate that word. But the point of TA is to help people rethink God, the goal of relationship with God and how to enter that from a variety of new vantage points...like the drive we all have to be god, and the propensity to see God in creation.

3. The challenge to find the 'fuller' narrative of God is a beautiful opportunity to rethink our dialogue (or lack of) in our culture. How do we take that concept and apply it to the politics of our country? Or do we? The Christian voice exercised in the Democratic process seems to only play to our disadvantage. I think many of my younger generation feel disillusioned by how to play our faith out in a political way. What insights would you offer us?

Boy that is a loaded one but let me make a couple really brief observations. 1. Jesus' interaction with the politics of the day as a mechanism of change for the masses didn't seem to be a high agenda item for him. 2. While I think we need to work all we can for a more just society I wonder what models Jesus left us that invite us to plunge in neck deep to the political process. I struggle with answering that well.

4. Your description of 1P (first person), 2P (second person) and 3P (third person) views of God was really eye opening. I had not previously considered how I unintentionally interact with and perceive God. What are some ways you engage the 1P and 3P views of God in your own journey?

I often do field gaze mediation, a kind of eyes open centering practice that is a very 3P practice. My 1P experiences are more of me learning to realize this person sitting across from me is imago dei. They are "breath of God" creatures. What does this mean to how I love, interact, not judge them? Loving them as self is a 1P practice. Not loving them as I love my self that is very egoic. But loving them as if they were self...and they are...I'm imago dei and so are they. This is a daily practice I engage, and has it ever challenged me, uncovered my impure motives, nastiness, and how self centered I am.

...more to come tomorrow.

Missional Ministry

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin) — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 12:40:00 +0000

This is a re:post from Craig Groeschel's Swerve blog. I thought this was a great insight on how to live our Christian lives and go about making disciples.

If you plan to reach the next generation for Christ, don’t ask them to believe what you believe, instead invite them to do what you do.

Beliefs are a dime a dozen. This generation has seen every variety of spiritual beliefs you could imagine (and many you couldn’t imagine).

They’re extremely turned off by people who don’t live what they claim to believe.

This generation doesn’t want to hear about what you believe. They want to see your beliefs in actions. And if you’re daring enough to live like Jesus, you’ll have a shot at reaching the next generation.

If your version of Christianity is limited to what you’re against, you’ll not likely reach many.
If, on the other hand, your faith is so alive you must feed the hungry, clothe the naked, heal the sick, and love the outcasts—all in the name of Christ, the King, you will attract interest.

As strange as it might sound, if you truly live a missional and Spirit filled life, the young generation might join you and do what you do, then one day believe what you believe.

I think this is a great model for discipleship, stop instructing people to believe the way you do and just start inviting them to do what you do. Thoughts?

Living Faithful

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin) — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 13:40:00 +0000

So do not worry about tomorrow. Let tomorrow worry about itself. Living faithfully is a large enough task for today.

Jesus of Nazereth, Matthew 6.34

I have been re:reading the Gospels as of late, re:finding Jesus' teachings and re:evaluating his interactions with his culture. And as I read about God's care for the birds of the air and the lilies of the field, it challenged me on a personal level, as it relates to the church of tomorrow.

I like to think that this blogging effort here on Tomorrow's Church is about dreaming of what the Church should be and could be in the future. But, it is plenty about worry for me, worrying we've messed it up too much, worried we've maimed the voice of Jesus' teachings, worried that we must re:found ourselves in the person of Jesus - worried.

Seems so silly doesn't it? The Church is the Bride of Christ, could not be mine - God's hand has been authoring this redemption story, not mine. I did not start this story and I can not end it either. I have a part to play, but it is not universal and beckons me to live a humble and faithful life today! Gandhi was so right when he said we must be the change we seek.

Living faithfully is a huge undertaking and enough work for today. Perhaps on some levels we have over-strategized, over-criticized, over-amplified the need for 'tomorrow-thinking' and under-delivered on today. We always want the bigger, the grandiose, the keys of knowledge about the future - yet we fall considerable short on the simplicity of Jesus' teachings. Loving our neighbor as ourselves is one such example and a great starting point for today.

I want to be the change I seek. And though I'm not advocating abandoning this blog or saying we should not plan and dream about the future, I am saying it should come with a heavy dose of humility and reality. A reality that God's in control, God can be trusted and God has not promised us tomorrow but has given us today to live faithfully within.

I've got a good start, but a long way to go in being this and doing it faithfully - you?

God the Father? Pt. 2

noreply@blogger.com (Mike McGarvey) — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 15:00:00 +0000

On my trip to Boston earlier this week I had the opportunity to teach a Theology 1 class. The professor for the class asked if I could talk about how theology affects ministry. I thought it was a good opportunity to hear the students' voice in a discussion I've been having as of late regarding how our relationship with our parents can affect our perception of God.

Something that stuck out to me in the discussion with the students was from a girl named Allie, who had grown up in a broken home, like many others that I work with in Teen Challenge and around the world. Allie mentioned that in her early years as a believer she had trouble identifying God as her father because of the abandonment and failures in her own family. She said clarity came as she got older and was able to understand a little more the nature of God and as she aged, her mother and other family members became more intentional in affirming her and making sure she understood that her father leaving was not her fault.

In part 1 of this series, I asked what is looks like to be intentionally involved in a child's life who is lacking a parent? I believe Allie's story begins to answer that question, we must affirm that the situation in their lives are beyond their control, that it is not their fault and help them develop an understanding of the unfailing fatherhood of God. Any thoughts?

An Important Distinction

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin) — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 02:57:00 +0000

This struck me as I'm trying to finish The Forgotten Ways and what a task it has been. I feel like Jacob and I've been wrestling this book forever - but it has been good. So instead of saying it my way, I'll just quote Mr Hirsch.

Our problem, it seems, is that we too quickly identify the concrete-historical expressions of church as the body of Christ. And while there is a truth to this, for the church is the body of Christ, perhaps the greater truth is that the body of Christ is the church. When we say that the church is the body of Christ, it claims a certain authority for a particular expression of church. To say that the body of Christ is the church is to open up possibilities as to how it might physically and organizationally express itself. This doesn't just localize it to one particular expression of church. The body can express itself in many different ways and forms. The distinction is paradigmatic. To restate it in these terms enables us to escape the monopolizing grip that the institutional image of church holds over our theological imaginations, and allows us to undertake a journey of reimagining what it means to be God's people in our own day and in our own situations.

Thoughts...

God the Father? Pt. 1

noreply@blogger.com (Mike McGarvey) — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 17:00:00 +0000

Over the last couple of days I've been reading through a book by Donald Miller titled "To Own A Dragon: Reflections on growing up without a Father." Donald Miller is one of my favorite authors because of his raw honesty and I enjoy the wit that he adds to his writing. I was actually looking for one of his other books, "Through Painted Deserts" when I decided to pick up this book- The library didn't have the other.

Initially I thought, I grew up with a good father-this book might not apply to me. Oh, how wrong I was. I got about 5 chapters deep and Donald Miller started speaking into my life, as a man now, and as a future father.

Miller begins to discuss how our parents and the authority around us influence our perception of God, the Father. For most of us, our parents weren't perfect, and for a lot of us we grew up without one or the other- and those things affect us whether we realize it or not. We can believe that God is present, real, and active: but like Miller touches on, we can forget that He is a father, He isn't a distant authority figure, but He is close, personal and present in our daily lives.

I want to share this from Miller's book, I'd love to hear some of your thoughts:

"I started thinking about the wisdom that is handed down when we have authority figures in our lives. We learn a trade by submitting to authority, we learn a work ethic by submitting to authority, we gain an academic life by submitting to authority, and more than any of this, we learn who we actually are by submitting to authority. And when we have earned authority ourselves, we teach others, because for so many years we have been taught. A guy like me, then, who has a resistance to authority, is begging to be useless. What I mean is, he isn't receiving any advice on how to live, and in turn he isn't able to hand advice down to those who are coming behind him. And if he is handing down advice, it isn't good advice. I mean it isn't tested and tried by years of experience."

Is there some knowledge and wisdom that children who are missing one or both parents have to learn on their own?

If so, do we have a responsibility to pass that knowledge on to children who are lacking that authority figure in their lives? Can we even be that sort of presence in their lives? If so, what's that look like? Thoughts?

Quote For Thought

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin) — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 20:31:00 +0000

The main stimulus for the renewal of Christianity will come from the bottom and from the edge, from sectors of the Christian world that are on the margins.

Harvey Cox, Religion in the Secular City

Conditions of God's Unconditional Love

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin) — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 16:04:00 +0000

Over the Holiday's I was fortunate to have some time to connect with Mike and Candice (who I hope will post something to Tomorrow's Church soon, so everyone doesn't grow weary of Kevin's endless rambling and yes, I just referred to myself in the 3rd person). But Mike and I had some time to dialogue about church thought and I wanted to share some of the conversation.

We have a peculiar faith that intertwines the seeming dichotomy between the unconditional love of a Creator and the conditions of restoring the relationship between Creator and creation.

So, for those of us called and captivated by who the church is today and what it needs to be tomorrow, we have work to do in a world that shrugs absolutes. Our world is comfortable with the idea of a God who loves and who says there is nothing that can separate us from that love (Romans 8). However, our world disdains attaching any condition to that love. An example would be peoples comfort and respect for the man named Jesus, like they respect Gandhi and MLK, but are not comfortable with accepting claims that Jesus is more than a man or for that matter, the only way to God.

I recently had a conversation with a pastor, in his middle age, great guy, and we were discussing the swinging pendulum of imbalanced theology and Christian movements. Like a rubber band, we seem to go from one side, often erring on extreme, to the other side - reaching a whole other extreme. And we came to the story of the Rich Young Ruler (Luke 18) and Jesus' interaction with him. Jesus not only saw what was lacking in the young ruler's faith, but shot straight to the issue - didn't pretend, didn't glaze over the issue - and then was willing to let him walk away saddened.

This pastor rightly accused our younger generation of being unwilling to let people walk away saddened by the conditions and the reality of the Liberating King story. I believe we must seek a balance in being able to dialogue with the world, engaged in our culture and still maintain our absolutes and the conditions of the gospel. And as I said to him, we are only trying to respond to his generations all-to-willingness to let people walk away not only saddened, but also pissed off.

There are a lot of thoughts about this, but I will end it with this; We have to bring balance to our practical theology and interactions with the world we are called to make disciples of. Discipleship necessitates conformity on some level, necessitates abiding in and under the conditions of God's unconditional love. Our challenge lies in simplifying what our absolutes really are. We must resist denominationalizing/dividing/separating over peripheral theological issues and center again on the love and person of Jesus Christ.

Thoughts...responses...

Kill the Clergy! [Part 2]

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin) — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 21:30:00 +0000

Yes, I took a long time in coming back to finish Part 2 of this thought process - my apologies. You can read Part 1 here and catch back up on where I was going with this, but I've been thinking about this a lot lately. And with saying that, I'm nervous I won't be able to fully articulate what I'm feeling, but will do my best and look to hear your input.

I believe a key in killing the terminology of clergy and ridding ourselves of the separation between clergy and laity is no longer using the word 'pastor.' Wait...what? Let me explain...

1st - We are all pastors and we all have pastoral roles to play in our families, work places and circle of friends. We are all called into the priesthood of God's Kingdom (mission) through our marriage with Christ and the Body. Thus we all have responsibility in loving, leading and caring for those we are gifted with the opportunity to have relationship with.

2nd - Because we don't realize the 1st, we have done a poor job of fulfilling our role. I believe we are all theologians too, though most would never call themselves a theologian, we are nonetheless so. Because we are human we occupy a unique space in creation, being fully physical and fully spiritual. You can be no more 'less human' than you can be 'less spiritual', which is exactly why throughout history humanity has struggled to grasp truth and either define or deny the existence of Deity. We are all theologians and we are all pastors and we need to start doing a better job of them.

3rd - This has all lead to an unhealthy and unbiblical set of expectations for those burdened with the title of 'pastor'. I have written about this aspect on my other blog (here), but when pastors become superstars and anything more than just human (another person trying to figure out this journey of life), pain and hypocrisy are inevitable. When Catholic Priests molest young boys, it is not a sign that they weren't 'holy men,' it's just a sign of the same broken human condition we all share. And it is the same when a pastor has a moral failure - they were never more than human, though we allowed them to be, and in a lot of cases, we thrusted them onto the pedestal ourselves. We shouldn't be 'more devastated' by their failure, we should be just as devastated by our own, remembering that sin is sin and we all fall short.

4th - So we must move from the title of pastor, to an understanding of leadership and influence. We need to have a more holistic understanding of what being a pastor means. We are all called to be disciple-makers and some are called to be apostles, some prophets, some teachers, some administrative, but we are all called. And changing our terminology will free the leaders of our local church communities to fit the role God designed for them and their passions. They will not have to conform to all the vague, unbiblical and unbalanced expectations that are encompassed in the title of 'pastor.' Instead, they will be free to lead us as they follow God and His calling for them - no longer having to pretend to be the marrying-burying-teaching-preaching-hospital-visiting-counseling-pastor the Church has come to expect of them.

So many more thoughts come to mind, but I'll stop here and ask you for your thoughts...

Defining 'Missional'

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin) — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 12:00:00 +0000

Micheal Frost added this to the conversation on 'what it means to be missional.'

In an interview on The Missional Blog, Frost said

our christology should lead to our missiology which in turn will lead to our ecclesiology

That is an interesting way of guiding the conversation. When we come to grips with the Jesus found in the gospels, it defines our mission as we translate it into our lives, our world and our culture. Thus, church is an outgrowing and a byproduct of moving from Jesus to His mission for us. I agree with him that many times we start with how to do church and then try to figure out mission as a byproduct of that.

I said this in the 'comments' the other day, but I think you could define missional as living in a way to stay outside the 'stifling equilibrium' of our traditions, denominations and doctrines. Never abandoning them, never abolishing them, but as Jesus did - fulfilling them - renewing them and their meaning in our lives.

In other words it is recognizing the tendencies of our human condition to seek comfort and predictability and finding ways to live continually outside of that. Finding ways to live outside of our own might or ability and instead, engaged in the adventure of depending on God and following his design for your life.

Thoughts...

Continuing The Missional Convo...

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin) — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 12:00:00 +0000

Below is Alan Hirsch's reply to the earlier post by Dan Kimbal and the conversation we've been having.

Dan, as someone who comes out clearly for the missional reframing of church, I do share some concerns about reproduction (fruitfulness). Anyone concerned with Jesus’ commission should be.

The comments so far are excellent and so I will just add a few more.

* I certainly don’t believe that attractional is not working. What I have said is that it has appeal to a shrinking segment of the population, and that persistence with a church growth style attractionalism, is in the long run, a counsel of despair. Are you suggesting that we simply stay with what we have got? Surely not bro?

* If we persist with our standard measurements for mission, we will miss the point. The issue is what idea of church is more faithful to the Scriptures. Genuine fruitfulness, surely, cannot simply be measured by numbers but by ‘making disciples.’ How does one measure that? By all accounts, current churches are made up largely of admirers of Jesus but few genuine disciples/followers–this is not a biblical idea of fruitfulness!

* Besides, the early church would not measure up to the current metrics!! If Rodney Stark is right, there was only 25,000 by year 100AD. Not exactly mind boggling church growth. Some attractional churches are larger.

* If we stick with the prevailing measures, we will miss the level of incarnational engagement with quantitative measures alone. How do we measure that? Incarnation takes time and loving presence (witness) among a people. Working with post-Christian folks ain’t easy because we have lost our credibility and have to work darn hard to regain it. I think there is much work to do here.

The only other thing I will say is that we as believers, live by a vision of what can be…we cannot allow ourselves to be constrained by pragmatics alone. Vision precludes that and is driven by holy discontent to see a greater manifestation of the Kingdom.

With love and respect.
AH

Thoughts...

Quote For Thought

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin) — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 03:54:00 +0000

And because this book is about missional dynamics, it is appropriate to make a comment about the a significant characteristic of Jesus movements at this point. In the study of the history of missions, one can even be formulaic about asserting that all great missionary movements begin at the fringes of the chruch, among the poor and the marginalized, and seldom, if ever, at the center. It is vital that in pursuing missional modes of church, we get out of the stifling equilibrium of the center of our movements and denominations, move to the fringes, and engage in real mission there. But there's more to it than just mission; most great movements of mission have inspired significant and related movements of renewal in the life of the chruch. It seems that when the chruch engages at the fringes, it almost always brings life to the center. This says a whole lot about God and gospel, and the church will do well to heed it.

-Alan Hirsch, 'The Forgotten Ways'

Missional Fruit (2)

noreply@blogger.com (Karli Kristine Zimmermann) — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 18:20:00 +0000

I am writing in response to Dan Kimball's article, "Missional Misgivings" (Refer to Kevin's last post). Although he gave us some good things to consider, overall the article discouraged me. The only 'misgiving' I had was toward his idea of "effective" ministry.
Dan begins his post with this statement: "Small, indigenous churches are getting lots of attention, but where's the fruit"?
Right here, Dan. I am the fruit.
I grew up in a fairly large Lutheran congregation. In high school, I went to youth group at a separate mega-church downtown. It was fun, it was flashy, and it was cool. Now, mind you, I am not here to bash mega-churches. I know they minister to large numbers of people, and I praise God for that. However, for someone who attended church her entire life, surrounded by a huge community of Christians, I felt alone. How is it that I attended a church with hundreds of people, yet knew only a handful? I went to church, I heard a great message, I got pumped up by the rock-band worship team, and went back to my normal life at home. I could skip a few Sundays, but I didn't need to worry- no one would notice. I was one of the hundreds. A small fish in a big sea. I was a member of a seemingly large support system, but did not feel supported.
In college, after much searching, I found a 'small, indigenous' church in downtown Spokane. For the first time I understood what Jesus meant when He talked about the Body of Christ. I felt like I was part of a family. People there were warm and inviting. I developed meaningful relationships with people, and was held accountable by my brothers and sisters. Church began to spill over into my week. It was no longer a Sunday event. It was a lifestyle.
This church was not perfect by any means. But it was here that I learned the importance of putting people first. It was here that my faith was most nurtured by the relationships I had.
Numbers? Small, but steady. There was growth, but nothing in comparison to the mega-congregation down the street. However, when we start looking at numbers to define the "success" of a church, we are missing the point.
In his article Dan Kimball, referring to one particular missional church, explains, "After fifteen years it hasn't multiplied. It's a wonderful community that serves the homeless, but there's no evidence of non-Christians beginning to follow Jesus. In the same city several megachurches are seeing conversions and disciples matured."
Alright Dan. Now I am overjoyed that conversions are happening left and right in that city's megachurches. I rejoice for that. However, it seems that he is discounting that missional church's ministry. He says himself that it is a "wonderful community that serves the homeless." It is a community that is taking giant steps in faith to serve the lost and forgotten. I have been to many churches over the years, and most steer clear of homeless ministry. It is uncomfortable, and takes a great deal of boldness to step out of your community and enter theirs. Building relationships with the homeless can be difficult. They do not give their trust easily, and most have been broken and abused in unspeakable ways. It's a whole different kind of ministry. We cannot judge a ministries success based on the number of people "we" convert. Last time I checked it is the Lord that changes the heart, not ourselves. We do not always get the privilege to see the fruit of our labor. Most of the time, hearts are not changed in an instant. The Spirit moves, but in His own time. Perhaps the church Dan speaks of has not "multiplied" in 15 years, but they are continuing in their ministry to the homeless and are being faithful to that call. Who's to say God is not stirring hearts in preparation for a later conversion?
Numbers do not determine effective ministry. Do we give Jesus a hard time for choosing only 12 disciples? Would it not have been much more effective to pour into 100 disciples who could disperse and spread the good news? How dare he assume 12 could do the job. Right?
Now I say this to stress a point. I am not saying that large groups are ineffective either. What I am saying is that Jesus knew how important it was to invest in relationships. He wanted a small group of disciples he could...wait for it...disciple. He wanted to develop a deep and meaningful relationship of trust with these men. He knew that the more he poured into them, the more they could pour into others. Clearly it worked. Open the Gospels and look at the great things these men did in faith.

As Kevin stated in his response, and I think he hits it right on, "I think the greater question is, "Who is your church trying to reach?" The answer to that question can lead to harder, less traveled paths of ministry. It can also lead to a more relationally based ministry that is hard to quantify in attendance, but is no less impacting."

I feel like there is so much more to say on this topic, but I want to stop here and ask for your thoughts.
I want to remind you again- my point is not to condemn one church model and praise another.
I do think Dan's article makes for an interesting discussion. I think it's good to be in conversation about such things...

Missional Fruit

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin) — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 21:57:00 +0000

The following are thoughts from Dan Kimball on the 'not-yet-proven' status of the missional movement.

I hope I am wrong. For the past few years, I have been observing, listening, and asking questions about the missional movement. I have a suspicion that the missional model has not yet proven itself beyond the level of theory. Again, I hope I am wrong.
We all agree with the theory of being a community of God that defines and organizes itself around the purpose of being an agent of God's mission in the world. But the missional conversation often goes a step further by dismissing the "attractional" model of church as ineffective. Some say that creating better programs, preaching, and worship services so people "come to us" isn't going to cut it anymore. But here's my dilemma—I see no evidence to verify this claim.

You can read the whole article here.

He raises some interesting points, but I think the greater question is, "Who is your church trying to reach?" The answer to that question can lead to harder, less traveled paths of ministry. It can also lead to a more relationally based ministry that is hard to quantify in attendance, but is no less impacting.

Thoughts?

If S*Bucks Marketed Like The Church...

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin) — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 14:09:00 +0000

Jave-lujah!

Thought this was an interesting perspective on how unnatural we make the church experience for people.

This was posted by Mike Foster over on the Ethur blog:
--------------------------------------------------------
NOTHING I DO IS “CHRISTIAN”
Posted November 6th, 2008

I’ve been very fortunate to work on and create some successful projects. I am always humbled to have been a part of creating initiatives that engage people.

While many of the projects have influenced people of faith, I consider none of them Christian projects. I do not create anything specifically focused on that particular target market. I rarely consider them in the generation of a concept or a project.

And before I scare you off let me just say that I am a follower of Jesus. I love the Church. I hope everything I do honors my creator.

So here is my tip for launching a successful idea. Market to humans. Not Christians.

If what you are doing doesn’t communicate or connect to God haters, people of other faiths, or those who don’t subscribe to your beliefs, then you’re in for a rough ride.
--------------------------------------------------------
Thoughts?

Quote for Thought

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin) — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 19:35:00 +0000

You are a Christian only so long as you constantly pose critical questions to the society you live in ... so long as you stay unsatisfied with the status quo and keep saying that a new world is yet to come.

- Henri Nouwen

Quote for Thought

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin) — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 19:18:00 +0000

"Perhaps the biggest issue I have with Christian social networks is that they are following the exact same path churches have been on for 2,000 years. Instead of churches permeating culture, we've created our own culture. We've taken the idea of church and made it a place instead of a presence."

Brad Abare
Article here.

The Christian, the Artist and the Gardeners

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin) — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 15:00:00 +0000

It has been a while since anyone has posted on here - including myself. I am painfully trying to finish collecting my thoughts for two good posts. In the mean time I read this article off of the 'Out of Ur' blog and loved it.

---------------------------------------------------

The Fall 2008 issue of Leadership contains a new feature: The Golden Canon book award. One of our finalists was Andy Crouch's Culture Making: Recovering our creative calling (IVP), the much-praised contribution to the ongoing conversation about the relationship between Christianity and culture. Here's a taste of Andy's prose, a tidbit to spark conversation.

The postures of the artist and the gardener have a lot in common. Both begin with contemplation, paying close attention to what is already there. The gardener looks carefully at the landscape; the existing plants, both flowers and weeds; the way the sun fall on the land. The artist regards her subject, her canvas, her paints with care to discern what she can make with them.
And then, after contemplation, the artist and the gardener both adopt a posture of purposeful work. They bring creativity and effort to their calling...They are creaturely creators, tending and shaping the world that original Creator made.

I wonder what we Christians are known for in the world outside our churches. Are we known as critics, consumers, copiers, condemners of culture? I'm afraid so. Why aren't we known as cultivators--people who tend and nourish what is best in human culture, who do the harsh and painstaking work to preserve the best of what people before us have done? Why aren't we known as creators--people who dare to think and do something that has never been thought or done before, something that makes the world more welcoming and thrilling and beautiful?
---------------------------------------------------
Thoughts?

Quote For Thought

noreply@blogger.com (Karli Kristine Zimmermann) — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:53:00 +0000

' Every age has its own characteristics. Right now we are in an age of religious complexity. The simplicity which is in Christ is rarely found among us. In its stead are programs, methods, organizations and a world of nervous activities which occupy time and attention but can never satisfy the longing of the heart.
The shallowness of our inner experience, the hollowness of our worship, and that servile imitation of the world which marks our promotional methods all testify that we, in this day, know God only imperfectly, and the peace of God scarcely at all.
If we would find God amid all the religious externals, we must first determine to find Him, and then proceed in the way of simplicity. Now, as always, God discovers Himself to "babes" and hides Himself in thick darkness from the wise and prudent.
We must strip down to essentials (and they will be found to be blessedly few). We must put away all effort to impress, and come with the guileless candor of childhood. If we do this, without doubt God will quickly respond.
When religion has said its last word, there is little that we need other than God Himself.'
- A.W. Tozer (The Pursuit of God)

Tozer gives us a great passage to chew on. Thoughts? Agreements/Disagreements? Discuss.

Quote for Thought

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin) — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 12:47:00 +0000

"We must now surrender to the obligation to understand and to care. We must surrender ourselves to becoming conscious, thinking members of the human race. We must put down the temptation to powerlessness and surrender to the questions of the moment."

- Joan Chittister

It's Not About Titles - It's About The Way

noreply@blogger.com (Kevin) — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 12:29:00 +0000

So I read an article called 'R.I.P. Emergent Church' (here), and it made me realize something; I think we get so caught up in the who's doing what and how, that we lose our Way.

This article is saying that the Emergent Church movement is dead, at the least the term is dead. Why? Because the term 'emergent' has become so convoluted and means too many different things to the individuals that claim it. It's kinda like saying 'I'm a Christian' - which means exactly nothing. The statement 'I'm a Christian' does not necessitate the Romans definition (10.9-10), nor does it mean you are pursuing the Way, the Kingdom of God, the God-design path for you life, etc, etc, etc. But it is no surprise that the emergent movement is dieing and it won't be when 'whatever comes next' dies too.

So, this relates with an earlier post (actually a re-post of some Mark Batterson thoughts) about how leaders often aren't true to themselves and how important that is for the missionally minded leaders. We mix up the Way of Jesus with the way that is working for this church or that leader.

But it brings me to a humble realization - the changes I want for Tomorrow's Church are at best for me and my generation. Realistically, probably more for a small demograph of my generation. My dreams are based on areas of the Church that have been found wanting in my life and the friendships that have pointed those areas out. But those dreams will drive me to answers that are not universal for all people and all churches - but for me and a community that agrees.

So I must continue to wrestle with Karli's challenge (earlier post) and not come up with another title for a movement, or another denomination or start going to a another church or plant another new chruch - maybe I just need to be the change and follow the Way.

I don't have universal answers, strategies or leadership - which is exactly why I follow the Way, the One. And that is why I'll never author a book on the 'Ways of Kevin', because at best, my life will be a poor representation of the One Way. So the best thing I can do as a leader is follow the One Way with all of my heart, mind and soul. And secondly, in pursuit of showing the Way to my neighbor, I can not afford to get caught up in the titles and terms - just the pursuit of the Way lived out!