In the first two posts of this series (Part 1 | Part 2), we looked at the 5 things that best characterize mega-churches. But moreover, we discussed how these aren’t actually things that characterize just mega-churches, but American churches in general. Thus, it’s not so much about size as it is about the defining trajectory of the church. 

Related posts:

The Gift of the Mega Church? (Part 2 of 3) The Gift of the Mega Church? (Part 1 of 3) The “Mega-Problems” of Mega-Churches

And just to make things interesting, let me pose these questions:

1. Are you a part of a mega church (2K+ people who attend regularly)? If so, what is the #1 reason you are there?
2. If you have an aversion to mega churches (for whatever reason), but stumbled upon one that functioned as described below, would you root yourself there? Why or why not?

In my last post I began to explore why I believe mega-churches might actually be a tremendous gift. Namely, that because of their MASS, with the right VELOCITY, they can get tremendous MOMENTUM in seeing renewal and transformation in a city. Furthermore, because they are such visible realities, they can serve as a place of inspiration and hope for other churches with a similar vision of hope and redemption for their cities.

The thing we hit up against in the last post was VELOCITY.

The VELOCITY (‘speed of something in a given direction’) in most churches is pointing towards simply getting people to the place and space of Sunday morning. AND…most of the structures are set up to get people who are already Christians.

That has VELOCITY, it’s pointing somewhere, but it may not be pointing towards the things that can release a movement of God’s Kingdom onto a city.

We looked at the 5 characteristics that define most American churches (regardless of denomination). Today, I want to look at the 5 paradigm shifts that I believe need to take place for churches to become this kind of movemental force for the Kingdom of God.

• #1 SUNDAY AS THE OVERFLOW (shifting from Sunday Centricity).
  • Our worship services should be the overflow of all that God has been doing in the previous week. We’re not coming to get our buckets filled and hope that it lasts for the next six days. It’s a time to celebrate. Worship God for who he is and what he’s done. Tell/hear stories of the triumphs and travails of life in the Kingdom. Submit to the Word as we listen to the Living Word. Take the Lord’s Supper. Pray together. When you gather a group of people together who have been “doing the stuff” during the week, it has a completely different feel than if you’re trying to make the service simply the place to fill up their (possibly leaky) bucket.
  • Is the Sunday worship service important? You bet. Incredibly so. But so are the other 6 days of the week. When the Scattered family Gathers for worship, there is a power and profoundness to it. But it’s because we’ve been scattered as the people God, being the people of God the other 6 days, now coming back together. We’re reminded that we’re part of a bigger story. It’s moving from a worshipping body that sometimes does mission to missional families who gather for worship. It’s a subtle but important shift.
  • Should we be thinking through how “seekers” experience the environment? Of course. But over and over again, I’ve found that “seekers” (particularly ones in this younger generation) are far more attracted to a sincere group of people celebrating and worshipping out of the overflow. They have a sense that it’s the real deal.
• #2 DISCIPLESHIP CULTURE (shifting from Consumer-Driven Structures)
  • For fear of pushing people, offending them or possibly seeing them find another church down the street, our posture has generally been, “Tell us what you want…exactly what will keep you here. We’ll then do our best to provide it for you.”
  • We need to form a spiritual path for people so that people are accepted for who they are, loved because they are a kid of the King, but still challenged to be about the family business…which is only the redemption and restoration of the whole world! In a world seeking significance, it’s exciting to be asked to get in on that!
  • If their wants are always placed higher than their needs as a disciple of Jesus, the world (and the Church) will continue on its’ current trajectory. Disciples need an invitation to continued relationship, but a challenge to go represent their Father and take Kingdom ground. Disciples aren’t consumers, they are producers.
• #3 LEADERS EVALUATED BY MULTIPLICATION (shifting from Celebrity Driven Culture)
  • Unequivocally, Jesus was the best in the world at anything he tried. He was the best fisherman who ever lived (miraculous catch). He was the best doctor who ever lived (dead people coming back to life). He was the best teacher who ever lived (malnourished people traveled for days, without food, to hear him). Best evangelist. Best prophet. You name it, he did it better. But above everything else, Jesus prized the multiplication of his leaders.
  • Jesus so fully invested himself in his leaders, teaching them to do everything he could do, that we was serious when he said, “You will do greater things than me.” And they did!
  • The issue isn’t whether you’re a gifted communicator that everyone sees. If you’re the best teacher on the planet right now…great. The issue is whether you believe the people you’re investing in will go on to do greater things than you. You’re a great communicator? Great. We need 10 more of you. And those 10 each need 10 of their own.
  • We need to shift away from our leaders seeing themselves as The Illusionist: Wildly gifted people who can make people ‘ooh’ and ‘aahhh’, but only because they never reveal or share their tricks, they are kept in high and mysterious esteem. Because of this, they are given a giant stage and become celebrities, with no one believing they could ever be like The Illusionist.
  • The Kingdom Leader: People who multiply whatever gifts and skill sets they have into the lives of others, fully believing that with the help of the Holy Spirit, it will far outweigh anything they could do and that each person will go on to do greater things. Jesus wants leaders, not illusionists.
• #4 KINGDOM FOCUSED FINANCIAL STRUCTURES (shifting from Inward Focused Financial Structures)
  • In the previous post, we looked at some of the startling statistics we see in American church. On average, 93% of budgets go to the “machine” of the church (salaries, benefits, buildings, ministries, etc). Another 5% often goes to marketing. On average only .5% goes to people who are struggling with basic needs like food, shelter, etc. The early church, in contrast, saw about 90% of incoming funds going back out into the community.
  • I’m not proposing that a specific % of our budgets go outside of the church. That’s up to each church and what they believe God is saying to them. However, I think there needs to be a shift to Kingdom focused allocation of our resources. If the church is called to bring more and more of the Kingdom of God (where everything exists exactly as it should) to earth, that should certainly impact the way we use our finances. If it’s not all about us…the way we use our finances should reflect that.
  • But apart from this, churches generally take a very linear approach to finances. In other words, it is always growth by addition and never by multiplication. “We’ve grown by ‘X’ number of people so we need to hire another staff person.” Or this one: “ We’ve outgrown our facility, we need to build a new one.” What this inadvertently does is make churches operate, for the most part, in a hand-to-mouth mentality. We’ll ask for money when circumstances dictate and cut things when things get tough. It’s all addition and subtraction.
  • But when Jesus talks about resources (which includes MONEY!) in the Gospels, he talks about multiplication and returns…10, 20, 60, 100 TIMES over. What’s fascinating to me is when you study the great movements of the church, most of them have economic engines outside of what people were giving and this is what funded the movement. There were people who were wicked smart at making money and used that money to advance the Kingdom.
  • The great irony, of course, is that in the land where entrepreneurs are most celebrated (America) we are often at our least creative when it comes to the church and finances. Who are the people gifted at starting things, making money, and making it multiply? How can we release those kinds of people?
• #5 SENDING OVER SEATING (shifting from Seating over Sending)
  • Jesus says that the harvest is plenty, but the workers are few. The problem is never the lack of harvest. It’s the lack of workers. But if we’ve got a culture of discipleship with people who are able to function in the Kingdom, embodying the character and competencies of Jesus…if you’ve got all of these amazing leaders who have been multiplied to do what you do…if you’ve got a community wanting to use finances for the good of what God is doing in the city…if you’ve got a place to gather people and celebrate all that God is doing and his enduring faithfulness…
  • You will have to send people out!
  • The nature of what we’re talking about is a tsunami of harvest workers who want to take ground for the Kingdom. And they will need space to stretch their wings, lead teams and multiply what you’ve done in them.
  • Do you like what you’ve got right now? Great. Would that city be better served if there were 10 more? Then 100 more?

As with all things, it always looks better on paper, doesn’t?

In our NEXT POST (and last one in this series), we’ll look at some simple, practical ways that churches can begin to cultivate these kinds of paradigm shifts, regardless of size.

Related posts:

The Gift of the Mega Church? (Part 1 of 3) The “Mega-Problems” of Mega-Churches Missional Church and the Future of Theological Education: Follow Up

I continue to have conversations and sharpen my critique of the mega church phenomenon. Recently, a friend, who doesn’t feel it’s the appropriate time to attach their name to these posts, wanted to add to the conversation and asked if my blog might be a venue for sharing and further conversation. Below is the 1st in a series of posts returning to this topic. Both I and the author (who will retain retain their anonymity) look forward to engaging in some conversation around these ideas and your responses.

If you study evangelical culture at all, you know there is a fair amount of debate about the value, place and future of THE MEGA-CHURCH (commonly defined as a church of 2,000 people or more). Like all things, the views on mega-churches range…from incredibly positive to extraordinarily negative. And of course you can find everything in between.

• From the “mega churches are awesome crowd,” what you usually hear is something completely pragmatic: “Hey, it works! These churches are killing it. Why are you giving them a hard time? We should do what works and this thing is growing. More power to them.” The pushback, of course, is that…

1. How are you defining “works?” It’s big? It’s growing? Are all big things good things? Are all growing things healthy things?
2. Even if they are growing, are the people we’re attracting becoming the types of people Jesus wants them to be? Does the structure of how the church functions actually prevent them from becoming these types of people, thus defeating the whole purpose?
3. “Because it works” has no theological underpinnings at all. How do we know we aren’t on a slippery slope and making the church something it was never intended to be but just an American imagination of it? Shouldn’t we start with solid Christology, Missiology and Ecclesiology and go from there?

Clearly some valid questions.

• From the “mega churches are evil crowd,” what you usually hear is something cynical and frustrated: “Look, these mega-churches are all about the celebrity pastor, ego and competition. They only care about the ABC’s: Attendance, Buildings and Cash. Practically no one is growing in their faith and it’s just about the show.” The pushback, of course, is that

1. Many mega-churches aren’t even trying to be mega. For many, it was as if the wind of the Spirit was at their back and suddenly there were all these people. Are we supposed to cap participation because the Spirit it as work?
2. Let’s not pretend like every mega-church is the same. There are some incredible mega-churches where disciples are making disciples, people are sent out and it has nothing to do with the celebrity pastor or the ABC’s. Why do people insist on painting us with broad-brush strokes?
3. We should be joining Jesus in the renewal of all things…including our cities and region. Why should we be ashamed of the fact that more of heaven can come to earth when there are more of us doing that?
4. Shouldn’t we be evaluating the Kingdom success of what we’re doing and trying to be more effective Agents of the Kingdom? Isn’t seeing fruit a good thing?

Valid points and questions from this angle as well.

Personally?

I don’t think it has anything to do with size. Rather, I think the thing to evaluate is what churches are going after. What are they oriented around? The fact of the matter is that most churches in North America are going after and oriented around the exact same things. It’s just that for all sorts of varying reasons, some churches are much larger than others. These reasons can range from the giftedness of the leaders or communicator, the systems in place for doing life/relationships, how fertile the soil is, a move of the Holy Spirit, etc. There are a lot of reasons.

So why specifically do I think mega-churches could be a gift?

It’s a simple physics equation.

MOMENTUM = MASS (X) VELOCITY.

Without getting into the social theory of it, we see cities and regions change because at some point, after a groundswell of momentum, there is a massive tipping point. (Rodney Stark’s book The Rise of Christianity does a fantastic job of exploring this principle from a sociological perspective in the early church).

We want momentum. We want Kingdom breakthrough. We want more of heaven to come crashing to earth. We want to see the Kingdom come. And the fact of the matter is that the more people you have (MASS) who are following Jesus (VELOCITY), the more MOMENTUM you have on your hands.

So I want more people. I want as many as I can get my hands on and I want every church to have more and more people.

But they have to have the right velocity.

Velocity is “the speed of something in a given direction” and there are at least 5 things that mark the given direction of most churches, regardless of size.

So the critiques lobbed at the mega-church? I don’t think they have much to do with mega-churches specifically. I think those critiques may be fair of most churches we see, and mega-churches just happen to be the biggest examples.

To give a full disclaimer, I didn’t come up with the following lens all by myself. My friend JR Rozko wrote a great blog post on this almost two years ago that I’m referencing below.

Think about it through this lens: Each of these characteristics could apply as much for a church of 150 as it could for a church of 15,000.

• Sunday-centricity. The majority of time, energy, resources and attention is given to the place and space of the weekend worship service. As such, the approach of most attendees is to regard the worship as the majority of what “church” is about. While gathering for a weekly worship experience is certainly an important part of the life of faith, most devoted believers will tell you it’s just the tip of the iceberg.
• Consumer-oriented structures. Many churches use various practices of attracting people and building their whole structure around the needs and desires of those they are seeking to join their community. On the surface, this seems harmless. But there are two inherent problems.

• The means you use to attract people are the means you have to use to keep them. In other words, if you got them there because of what your church has to offer, it puts a lot of pressure on you to continue being the best at that thing lest someone else do it better and they leave (i.e. competition with other churches).
• Ultimately, we’re inviting people into a way of life that is about being a producer and not a consumer  (discipleship). It’s incredibly hard to pivot to the centrality of being a disciple of Jesus when most church structures are about you and your preference. As many churches are seeing, it has the potential to feel like a ‘bait and switch’ on the members’ side, and to create a great sense of frustration on the church’s side.

• Celebrity Driven Culture. Churches are set up so that the Senior Leader becomes a pseudo-celebrity (or in some cases, a very real one), with more attendees giving them an increasingly larger platform to be a celebrity. This is problematic on two fundamental levels.
  • So much of our American culture is built on the sin of celebrity (and everyone wants to be one!). So in this situation, the system is built with the thinking of “let’s just use it for the good of the church.” But the end doesn’t always justify the means.
  • It forms people to believe that whoever is on the stage (the celebrity) is part of the spiritual elite and that’s what they should be shooting for. It’s the old “the medium is the message.”
• Inward Focused Financial Structures. The average American church is going to spend at least 93% of their budget on themselves: salary/benefits, buildings, ministry resources, etc. It’s about keeping what they have running (self-sustainability) and hopefully increasing it. To put this in context, the church historian Dr. Ray Mayhew estimates that the early church used more than 90% of funds received outside of their own community. To be fair, there is a growing segment of the North American church that is addressing this disparity (people like David Platt, Shane Claiborne and Francis Chan should be commended for their work on this).

• Seating over Sending. Churches sometimes veer more towards building their own empire than seeking first the Kingdom. Many times the growth of the church intersects with the expansion of the Kingdom. But sometimes it doesn’t. Sometimes it actually hinders the Kingdom. More and more, what we’re seeing is churches wanting more people, more sites, more franchises. And in some instances that may be what’s best for the kingdom. But in others, what’s best for the Kingdom might be sending and releasing people rather than simple accumulation. This plays out most obviously when talking to other pastors, when the first question is “How big is your church?” As if this was the definitive question.

Like I mentioned already, I don’t think these issues have anything to do with church size. I think this is what we see most churches oriented around. Whether they have 200 people or 10,000. By and large, it’s these characteristics that define many American churches.

THE ISSUE IS VELOCITY. These 5 characteristics might get you momentum to a bigger church. But if statistics from Ed Stetzer are right (in this post he concentrates on statistical growth in mega-churches), the overwhelming majority of people are coming from other churches or just took some time off from church. Only 6% of new growth is from the unchurched and as much as 18% from dechurched (know Jesus, grew up in church, maybe gave up on Jesus and/or church at some point). The rest are people already going to church.

I’m not sure a bigger church of people who already know Jesus is what Jesus had in mind. I think the VELOCITY Jesus had in mind would see new people coming into the Kingdom, one where cities, regions and countries seeing redemption and renewal outside of the place and space of the building of the church.

The point? If these are the characteristics of our churches, we might have the wrong VELOCITY.

Now I actually think there are very deep theological reasons for this, ones that have to do with the Gospel and soteriology, etc. but I will leave that for some other friends to cover for another time.

MORE TO COME…
In the next post of this three-post series on mega-churches, we’ll look at the paradigm shifts that would need to take place to re-orient ourselves to get after Kingdom VELOCITY. In the third post, I’ll explore some of the practical realities of these shifts.

Related posts:

The “Mega-Problems” of Mega-Churches Missional Church and the Future of Theological Education: Follow Up “Missional God, Missional Church” by Ross Hastings (Book Review), Pt.3

// Video won’t embed, so click on the image to watch it on Vimeo.//

Related posts:

Dr. Richard Mouw on Fuller Seminary, Evangelicalism, & Homosexuality Grilled Cheesus Hauerwas at Fuller Seminary on Mental Illness

Two weeks ago, on-site and on-line, some 700 Christian leaders convened for the inaugural, North American Missio Alliance gathering, “The Future of the Gospel: Renewing Evangelical Imagination for Mission.” Participating in this conference was an interesting experience for me. On one hand, as one of the main organizers of the initiative and gathering, I was in work mode from start to finish. On the other hand, as someone who has been shaped by a “missional vision” of theology, church, and leadership formation emanating from a range of writers, institutions, and groups, seeing this initiative begin to take shape was incredibly gratifying and exciting on a personal level. All that being the case, I’m not sure how perfectly I can segment out my own reflections into neat categories, but I think it’s important to try.

To be sure, I’ve received (directly and indirectly) no shortage of feedback – all of which has been most welcome!

See below for a list of links to other blog posts from folks commenting on Missio Alliance and our inaugural gathering. If you are aware of others, please feel free to leave them in the comment section. 

From the online and offline comments of others, a few things have stood out to me…

• Some have applauded us for going out of our way to diversify our presenters in terms of gender, ethnicity, theological heritage, and areas of expertise; others think we didn’t do enough.
• Some have congratulated us for cultivating such a unique context for the confluence of robust theological reflection and practical expertise; others felt the gathering was too lop-sided.
• Some were overjoyed that we opened up space for constructive presentations, dialogue, and proposals regarding human sexuality; others were embittered that not all positions were given equal attention.
• Some were enormously thankful that we chose to develop the maximum number of workshops possible give our space and time; others believe it would have been more helpful to have developed far fewer an repeated them several times.

Amid these and other reflections, I think it wise to move forward along parallel lines: 1) Hey, we can’t please everyone, so don’t sweat it too much, right? 2) It’s vital that we listen to what people are saying, engage in dialogue about the issues that are raised, and submit it all to the Holy Spirit as we discern what God is saying and how we might respond most faithfully.

Lord willing, this is the posture we’ll adopt as we move forward with future projects, gatherings, and work.

Speaking more personally, here are a few of the things that most encouraged me about this gathering…

Diversity was Relational, not Contrived

Over 1/2 of our presenters were not white males. Including female and minority voices was of unique significance for us, but more important was that we not manufacture diversity for diversity’s sake. Rather, we invited those to whom we had relational connections and could speak meaningfully speak into the issues driving the development of Missio Alliance and the inaugural gathering. Best as I can tell from my experience and the reflections of others, some serious learning and perspective/paradigm shifting took place as a result of this feature of our gathering. Major props goes to our non-majority culture friends who, through a shared interest in mission-shaped theology and eccelsial practice, came and humbly used their gifts and experience to lead us! Our attendance, though perhaps even much more diverse than would by typical for a gathering such as this, was still not as diverse as we would have liked. But again, we have no ambition to develop a contrived diversity. It’s my sincere hope and prayer that God will continue to diversify (perhaps even as a result of the workshops we offered on developing multi-cultural expressions of the Church!), our relationships and partnerships on-the-ground and in-the-trenches of mission and ministry.

Gifted Female Teachers and Preachers Shone Brightly

If I am being honest, and on a strictly personal level, this might have been the most encouraging aspect of our gathering. I can’t go into here the ins and outs of why I find the traditional complimentarian and egalitarian arguments re: gender and leadership misguided. Suffice to say, the suppression of gifted female leadership in the local Church grieves me deeply and in my estimation, one of the defining marks of local churches living into their Trinitarian essence and vocation is the co-laboring of men and women in all aspects of their life. At the #FutureGospel gathering we got to see that in action! Cherith Fee-Nordling, Jo Saxton, MaryKate Morse, Deb Hirsch, and still other female leaders, alongside similarly gifted men, preached and taught all of us in Spirit-inspired ways. Seriously, if Missio Alliance did nothing else besides engender (pardon the pun) the advance of a core value for shared leadership amongst men and women in churches, networks, and organizations, I’d feel pretty satisfied.

The Historic, African-American Ecclesial Venue Radically Shaped Our Experience

I love that we landed in an ecclesial venue for our gathering. I think that was an important aesthetic element in marking the shape of this initiative. I was even more encouraged that it was through God leading us into a relationship with Alfred Street Baptist Church (the 6th oldest AA church in the US) and its pastor, Howard-John Wesley that this opportunity came about. From start to finish, through the planning of the gathering as well as the execution of the gathering itself, it put us (as organizers as well as attendees) on unfamiliar territory. Different power structures, different rules and expectations, different kinds of space to use, etc. In all of this we were blown away by the hospitality of ASBC and the various teams who were guiding us, but the decision to embrace the cross-cultural elements of the venue itself added a value that’s difficult to express.

I also need to say here that I think the address that Pastor Wesley offered was one of the most compelling parts of our gathering. I don’t mean the content of his address specifically – though he gave us plenty to reflect on! Rather, as I stood in the very back of the sanctuary, at the back of the balcony as a matter of fact, and looked out on a largely caucasian crowd listening to and learning from an African-American pastor and preacher who began by talking about his lifelong experience of being raised in an African-American context and in an African-American church, I thought to myself, “This is SO important and needed – a largely caucasian crowd, steeped in the “missional conversation,” sitting in an unfamiliar context, listening to a very qualified, yet unfamiliar, voice speak to shared concerns from a perspective that requires us to suspend our own assumptions and judgments in order to receive.

Relationships and Networks were Catalyzed, Deepened, and Expanded

As a consumate networker, this one’s got a special place in my heart. One of my favorite activities leading up to the gathering was watching the registrations roll in and getting to connect, via email, people who I thought needed to meet in person. During the gathering I was flying around like mad, but my favorite part of that was getting to glance out of the corner of my eye at online connections taking on flesh, overhearing people discuss follow up meetings, and brainstorming collaborative work. Aside from individual connections, I was also encouraged by the organizational ones. Truthfully, I never imagined that we would sell out of seating space. The only thing that could have been more unimaginable was that we would sell out of space for partnering co-sponsors, but that’s exactly what happened. We had 20+ partnering organizations packed into a Commons area, but the best part of that was that was seeing the interaction that took place as a result of the close quarters. There was an energy that I don’t think could have been produced any other way. The last encouragement on this level is tied to the sub-gatherings that took place. We were able to make it possible for a range of networks, denominations, ministries, and groups of shared interest to connect and interact around the themes of the gathering as well as build their own ties.

Room to improve? Sure. Things I am disappointed we didn’t or or do well? Absolutely. But at the end of the day, I’ve been asking one central question of myself, others, and the Holy Spirit, “Did our time together honor God by creating space and resources for the theological formation of Christian leaders to more fully and faithfully participate in God’s mission?” And I feel like the answer has been a resounding, Yes! So, as people have asked me how I feel coming out of the gathering, my main response has been a simple, but enthusiastic, “Thankful!”

Here are some links to the reflections and feedback of others…

Thoughts on Missio Alliance Conference, Karina Kreminski

Three Perspectives of the Missio Alliance Gathering, Joshua Rhone

The Future of the Gospel is Not White, Middle-Class, and Male, Todd Hiestand

Unofficial Cherith Fee-Nordling Fan Page, Chris Morton

Did I Get What I expected from Missio Alliance, Kevin Scott

At Missio Alliance, Alistair Brown

Eight Game Changers Observed at Missio Alliance, Chris Morton

Theology at Missio Alliance, Ken Schenck

Bringing Unsexy Missional Back, Zach Hoag

More on Unsexy Missional, Zach Hoag

Sow, Meet Reap, Zach Hoag

Smokin’ Hot Wives & Water to the Soul, Zach Hoag

Why Missio Alliance & Subverting the Norm Need Each Other, Bill Walker

Related posts:

So, What is Missio Alliance and this Future of the Gospel Gathering? (Pt.1) Missio Alliance & The Future of the Gospel: Cultural Realities, Theological Imagination, & the Missional Church The Future of the Gospel: Renewing Evangelical Imagination for MISSION (Pt. 5)

Last month I posted this, extolling Prodigal Christianity: 10 Signposts into the Missional Frontier by my friends Dave Fitch & Geoff Holsclaw as a “gift, challenge, & example” to the missional church. Well, tonight (Saturday, March 23, 2013) at 6PM they will be at Northern Seminary doing a Q&A around the book. I’ll be there as well representing Missio Alliance. It’s free, open and to the public. Here are some more of the event details. If you’re free and in the area hope you’ll join us.

If you can’t make it, here’s 10 short videos where Dave and Geoff provide the gist of each of the 10 signposts of their book.

Related posts:

Prodigal Christianity | A Gift, Challenge, & Example to the Missional Conversation Ecclesia/Missio Alliance: A Podcast with Scot McKnight Missio Alliance & The Future of the Gospel: Cultural Realities, Theological Imagination, & the Missional Church

In the January 2013 edition of the EMQ Journal,  offers a compelling piece entitled, “Time to Reboot Agency/Church Relations?” As I read it, I think I exclaimed “AMEN!” at least 10 times – which is saying something since it’s all of 2 pages. In short, Corwin is after a reconfiguration of the church/mission agency landscape in North America. One that, as I would frame it, would help us recover from the devastating and oppressive forces of Constantinianism, which severed church and mission resulting in the kinds of issues raised in this article.

I would like to put forth what I find to be some of Corwin’s most salient points, commenting briefly on each.

For starters, Corwin say, “Agencies should refuse to process candidates who come to them without the enthusiastic endorsement of their home church, based on a history of effective and faithful ministry in that church.”

The hard truth here is that mission agencies which fail to operate on this principle deviate from the biblical witness, overstep their bounds within the framework of faithful mission strategy, which ought to always be ecclesially-shaped, and work against the healthy and faithful witness of the people they seek to send. Taking this point alone seriously would revolutionize the North American “missions” scene.

In terms of the “screening of candidates” and “field supervision and member care of missionaries,” Corwin is in favor of an approach that is far more collaborative than is commonly practiced. “Annual reviews should be the norm for all mission workers, and their home churches should be copied on the results,” says Corwin.” Such cooperation is virtually impossible, however, given the isolationist way in which churches and agencies typically relate.

For Corwin, “It is a mistake when agency accountability is handled more as a public relations function than the development of a multi-faceted relationship built around shared passions.” Seeking to move churches and mission agencies into a closer and more integrated way of relating is undoubtedly a slower and harder process, but it is also deeper, richer, and in the final analysis, more faithful. It is to our great detriment that we have McDonaldized Christian mission. We have sacrificed something intrinsic to the spiritual fabric of our calling for the sake of ease and efficiency. I’m not sure we are prepared to reckon with the full implications of such a move.

Corwin continues; “It is rare that forums of agencies and church leaders come together to discuss God’s purposes in mission and explore theological and missiological fault lines. Instead, this should be a regular feature on agency calendars each year.” As a missional theologian, this point is of particular interest to me. However, rather than launching into a full diatribe, I will simply offer that I find the lack of critical theological dialogue around and emerging from the practice of mission both maddening and embarrassing. Also, that I am privileged to be directing an initiative that is seeking to remedy this, Missio Alliance.

Corwin finishes his article by noting, “Whatever the actual pattern of relationship, churches and agencies do need each other. The sooner they get more serious abut strengthening their relationships, the better it will be for achieving God’s purposes.”

I appreciate that Corwin emphasizes that he’s not looking to get rid of mission agencies. Agencies play a vital role in terms of invigorating and facilitating a fundamental aspect of the mission entrusted to the Church – that of making disciples of “all nations.” However, it is in point of fact, an invitation that is extended to the Church. As such, a wholesale relegation of this aspect of God’s mission to independent agencies is, not to mince words, a grotesque affront to a faithful approach to the missio Dei. Corwin has offered a challenge to mission agencies and churches that begs to be reckoned with. The lingering question is which of these entities will allow their commitment to faithfulness to trump institutionality?

Related posts:

The Future of the Gospel: Renewing Evangelical Imagination for MISSION (Pt. 5) The Future of the Gospel: RENEWING EVANGELICAL IMAGINATION for Mission (Pt. 4) Missio Alliance & The Future of the Gospel: Cultural Realities, Theological Imagination, & the Missional Church

Hastings is unflinching in his commitment to root all reflection on the nature and life of the Church in trinitarian theology. He claims,

What ails the church with respect to its spirituality and ecclesiology is above all our poor theology proper. If the contemporary church truly grasped and lived by the truth that mission is the mother of theology and theology is the mother of mission, that is, if the church were intoxicated with the triune God, it would be transformed and a powerful transformer of culture. (250)

I might insert, as a quick aside on that last bit, the anti-Kuyperian, dare I say Anabaptist?!, nature of this claim. The transformation of culture is not a project external, or in addition to the life of the Church, but a result of truly investing ourself at exactly that one point. In other words, it isn’t the Christians have a mission to transform culture, it’s that truly living as the Body of Christ is God’s means of transforming culture. I digress…

Hastings goes on to clarify that given that the relationshop b/t the members of the Trinity are characterized, not by subordination, but by mutual submission.

By analogy the missional church will be known as a servant of the kingdom without concerns about subordination… Missional churches will therefore not understand themselves to be in competition with other local churches, but as interdependent communities. (255)

Catch that? This may be one of the most pivotal points of reflection for those churches who fancy themselves “missional.” Understanding and practicing mutual submission, both internally and externally, as a church community, is endemic to truly embodying a missional ecclesiology. I submit (see that?!) that this may be one of the most important litmus tests in defining and identifying what it means and looks like to be missional.

Hastings move on from here to a discussion of mission as theosis (roughly, taking upon a divine nature). There’s no way I can summarize his excellent discussion on this topic. Essentially, he’s advocating for a (Bathian) perspective whereby we understand mission as a participation in the life and love of God as opposed to, among other things, an act that merely follows from it. For Hastings,

The primary distinctive of the Western evangelical tradition has been its narrative of individual conversion and lively spirituality. What has not been emphasized as much is the eccelsially mediated nature of faith and the ecclesial dynamic of conversion… The failure of many evangelicals to habe an ecclesial identity and communal character begins with the individualistic language of conversion. (285-286)

Instead, the author suggests,

The missional church will therefore preach a gospel that includes conversion’s ecclesial dynamic. It will consider conversion not just a crisis of belief but a process of belonging. It will also engage new converts in serious catechizing… (286-287)

Then, and in solidarity w/ Latin American theologian Rene Padilla (whom he quotes at length), Hastings offers a beautiful vision of Christian mission which, on account of its trinitarian and kingdom orientation, circumvents the dichotomy of “evangelism” and “social justice” that continues to plague Western evangelicalism. He suggests that, rightly conceived, Christian mission…

… will be mission to the whole person, to whole communities for bringing in the shalom God intended for the whole creation. Participational mission involves the pursuit of justice, compassion, and evangelism. The church in Christ as last Adam calls humanity toward its destiny. Therefore it takes seriously the claims and commands of the sovereign Lord on every human being, and defends the human rights of all, and brings the gospel to bear on all of life. (288)

Next, the author draws our attention to the role and mission of the Holy Spirit in and through the life of the Church.

The modern world has told us to trust in our techniques, to take control in order to achieve success. However, in the church the opposite is true: the church can only be the church when it submits control to the Spirit. This is that the kingdom of God is about – submission to Gpd’s perfect reign. (300-301)

The author moves on to note the importance of the Spirit in the process of moral formation for the gathered Church, but I have to say, given the trinitarian and kingdom orientation of the rest of the book, I think a huge opportunity to discuss the specifically ethical dimension of God’s life and mission and its significance for the life and mission of the Church, indeed our very understanding of salvation, was missed. Next book maybe?!

Hastings concludes the section and book with a chapter on forgiveness. In keeping with the rest of his reflections, he draws attention to how the Protestant tradition has mutilated what can only be rightly understood as an ecclesial practice, relegating it to an individualistic experience. He means for us to revisit the notion of forgiveness as intrinsically participational.

Our failure as evangelicals to acknowledge the human instruments of forgiveness is a consequence of the way in which Western individualism has made salvation a “Jesus and me’ experience… I want to plead for a more eccelsial understanding of salvation and ongoing filial confession. The salvation moment/process is always mediated by the church. Furthermore, there is something about our communal orientation as persons made in te image of a triune relational God that makes us experience forgiveness psychologically only as we confess to another and receive words of absolution from one another. This authority is what Jesus gave to his apostles for the church they were birthing. (314-315)

To sum up, I think this is a uniquely important and helpful book for those of us committed to missional theology and ecclesiology. I offer three, very brief, reasons.

1. Too often missional language is co-opted by those seeking new packaging or pragmatic solutions to the waning influence of the Church. This book adds to a growing body of work that repudiates such a move.
2. Even for those who propound solid missional ecclesiology, often it fails to find a proper and firm basis in theology, let alone trinitarian theology. Hastings, especially where he draws from Barth (inasmuch as he can be considered to be a primary example of doing theology in defiance of many of the trappings of Christendom) and non-Westen theologians such as Orlando Costas and Rene Padilla, provides a robust and engaging trinitarian theology as a framework out of which he develops a missional ecclesiology.
3. Even if not explicitly, Hastings makes it clear that the discipline of missiology is of unparalleled significance for not only developing faithful theology and ecclesiology, but for nurturing and sustaining the life and witness of the Church. In other words, thinking and living missiologically is a prerequisite for truly knowing and following a triune God who is, in God’s very character, missionary.

Related posts:

“Missional God, Missional Church” by Ross Hastings (Book Review), Pt.2 “Missional God, Missional Church” by Ross Hastings (Book Review), Pt.1 Multiplying Missional Leaders by Mike Breen & 3DM (Book Review)

Dave Fitch and Geoff Holsclaw are two good friends that I have the privilege of serving alongside of at Life on the Vine and through other shared endeavors like the Missional Learning Commons and Missio Alliance. They teamed up to write Prodigal Christianity: 10 Signposts into the Missional Frontier and here’s the deal…

whether you are a Christian teacher, a pastor, or just seeking to me a theologically reflective disciple, it is THE book you should read this year.

Yes, it’s that good. And that’s not just because the content is so insightful, integrated and accessible – though it is – it’s because these are two guys living it out and exhibiting the kind of character that, in my opinion, ought to be prerequisite for Christian publishing.

Here’s a quick video of Geoff and Dave talking about why they wrote the book. They ham it up and don’t even come close to capturing all of what’s behind it, much less the full scope of its significance for guiding and shaping the “missional conversation.” However, in my humple opinion, these friends have offered us not just a much needed book, but – and this might even be more important – a model for the sort of writing that we need to see much more of… co-authored works by those whose work is formed in the midst of critical theological reflection in mission.

Do yourself a favor and pick it up!

Related posts:

“Missional God, Missional Church” by Ross Hastings (Book Review), Pt.2 The Place of Salvation in the Missional (Church) Conversation “Missional God, Missional Church” by Ross Hastings (Book Review), Pt.1

The shalom theme actually runs back to part of what Hastings offered in the introduction that I didn’t pick up in the first part of the review. He says…

The call of the church in any age is faithfulness to shalom sharing, the living and proclaiming of the gospel in its fulness… That said, the missional call to which christians are to be faithful must include faith-filled engagement and shalom sharing with society at every level. (22)

The theme of shalom comes into focus for Hastings in this section inasmuch as he is seeking to structure his reflections around John 20:19-23 as a core text. It is here where Jesus appears to his disciples following his resurrection and says, “Peace (shalom) be with you.” Though this second section leaves much to be desired in terms of organization, the author seeks to explicate a missional ecclesiology with reference to shalom as the defining mark of a faithful Christology.

In a manner that perhaps asks too much of an isolated, albeit important, text, Hastings seeks to draw out Christological implications of John 20:19-23 for framing an ecclesiology. He offers that the Church is: Christocentric, Celebratory, a community of Shalom (bad move to isolate a key term that you are trying to argue for seeing as an overarching theme), a community of hospitality, and essential community, a one holy catholic community, both lively and old, missional (see critique above), and catechetical. Again, this is cumbersomely organized, but he offers some fantastic theological insights and related practical suggestions nonetheless.

In the following chapter, Hastings turns his attention (back) to the dual nature of Christian mission, here described as at once, incarnational and resurrectional.

A Christian theology of mission therefore is inherently creational, world-affirming and holistic, and it moves us to engage the world to seek the whole personhood and full humanization of each person… The mission of the Christian church is to be undergirded by the telos of God for humanity  that is, what he intended when he created humans in the image of God and more particularly when he sent the last Adam to be its fulfillment and archetype. (149)

By tracing out a fully trinitarian anthropology and by arguing for the inherently ethical nature of Christian mission, Hastings seeks to dismantle the artificial disunity that Western Christianity has erected between “evangelism” and “justice.” This leads to some compelling arguments for how we understand and practice being the missional Church that God intended.

It is only after establishing the primacy of the resurrection for framing key components of a missional ecclesiology that Hastings turns his attention to what it means to understand the cruciform nature and practice of Christian community and mission. Here, he seeks to make a case for sacramental practice by recasting it in light of its participational/missional nature and witness. For example,

In its gatherings centered on Communion, the church is itself a semiotic missional expression of Christ given for the life of the world. It should be a table of gospel invitation to all… The Passover and the covenantal dimensions of the communion serve to reinforce the missional nature of Communion. (203)

In the final chapter of this section the author speaks to mission about the cross and mission under the cross. When Hastings says “mission about the cross,” he’s mainly talking about preaching. This is, in my opinion, narrow, but what he offers is profound nonetheless.

Missional preaching is fueled by the conviction that the atonement is a fait accompli for all since God has in Christ justified creation and all humanity representatively and yet that God will not push this ‘yes’ verdict on anyone. This Barthian perspective on the One true human, Jesus, who has justified humanity and indeed creation, offers a perspective beyond Calvinist and Arminian perspective. (225)

To this I can only add a hearty AMEN! (It’s also, by the way, a seldom explored point of connection b/t Barth and Anabaptists . This perspective paves the way for a more proclamational disposition toward preaching and Christian witness in general. More than defending, arguing, or coercing people toward the Christian faith, we proclaim it as reality as we witness to it in submission and power.

This leads quite naturally to where the section finishes – mission under the cross. This involves seeing and understanding the church through the lenses of the Kingdom of God.

As a community that embodies the kingdom values of a servant King, it will reflect triumph over principalities and powers, but not in triumphalistic ways… The church’s members will bear those scars [of Jesus] when they invite people to leave their self-accomplishment to embrace the cross in repentance, relying only on Christ and his work for them. The church’s members will also be expected to enter the scarred places of the world. Conflicts with the success motif of modernity will invite persecution… In other words, the nature of the church as a servant, cross-centered community reveals what the kingdom is, even if the kingdom is larger in scope than the church. (233-234)

Hastings also speaks of the peripheral (marginal) nature of the Church’s life and witness. Far from being societally determined, marginality is where the Church “locates” itself theologically. It is from this place/identity that we are better situated to come alongside those who are culturally, socio-economically, or otherwise marginalized as brothers and sisters offering hospitality and a overcoming oppressiveness, not through violent revolution, but in the way of Jesus.

Christians living under the cross present the gospel in the manner Jesus presented it – nonoppressively. (239)

Related posts:

“Missional God, Missional Church” by Ross Hastings (Book Review), Pt.1 Multiplying Missional Leaders by Mike Breen & 3DM (Book Review) Toward a Thepoetic of the Cross (Book Review)

Busyness is one of the things that has kept me from writing the review, but there’s another reason…

This book is undoubtedly one of the most important and helpful books to be published on the subject of “missional church” since the book by that very title. It should be required reading for any and all graduate level course work in the area of missional theology and ecclesiology.

That’s pretty high praise, but I think the book deserves every bit of it. This is the other reason that I’ve been hesitant to write a review – fear of failing to do the book justice. Alas, this is a fact I will just have to come to terms with as I simply offer what I think to be some of the book’s most salient contributions. Even so, I think this review will necessitate at least three parts, one for each major section of the book.

Introduction

In the first four chapters, Hastings frames the nature and purpose of his writing, offers his take on the state of the Western Church, and then delves into issues of culture and Trinitarianism as major themes that undergird the rest of what he seeks to argue.

From the Preface…

What I offer here is a theology of the church that is, in a nutshell, participational, that its missional identity is an organic consequence of union in and participation with the missional God, who is bidirectional in His missional nature. He both sends and brings. (15)

Hastings is concerned that we maintain a perspective of God as the primary agent of mission as opposed to the Church, or worse, individuals. He also wants to emphasize the dual nature of God’s mission – that it includes God sending the Church to join in on God’s mission in the world (centrifugal), but also God bringing/drawing/inviting people to himself through the life and witness of the Church in mission (centripetal). Had the book been about this point alone, it would have been an enormous gift to the missional conversation, which continues to stumble with regard to its deficient understanding of the difference between attractive and attractional (see esp. 129-130).

Culture

On the culture side of things, Hastings isn’t so much concerned with developing a full-orbed theology of culture, but with pointing out the difference between enculturation…

the process whereby an existent, prevailing culture influences an individual or community to imbibe its accepted norms and values so the individual or community is pressured to find acceptance within the society of that culture

and inculturation…

ways to adapt the communication of the gospel for a specific culture being evangelized.

Specifically, Hastings contends that…

the challenge the Western church faces is that it is often enculturated in ways that it ought not be, and that it is not inculturating the gospel in ways that it ought to be. (38)

Trinity

This chapter represents the theological center of Hastings’ missional ecclesiology. He contends that…

…participation in the life of the triune God as revealed in Christ is the greatest key to releasing the church from its besieged and defeated position… Therefore, to the extent that the Western church rediscovers its identity by inhabiting the story of the Trinity; to the extent that it lives in communion with the triune God; to the extent that it has an openness for human relations reflective of God’s openness; to the extent that it works in participation with what he is doing; to the extent that it works incarnationally, modeled on and in union with Christ; to the extent that it lives in communion with the indwelling, transforming  empowering Spirit; to the extent that it reflects the diverse, irreducible identities or character of the three persons in a coinherent way, there is hope for the Western church, and indeed the whole church of God. (81-82)

Tall order right?! Hastings goes on to point out key points of relevance and connection between a robust trinitarianism and the shape and life of the Church, which is thus inherently missional. He draws heavily on Barth, but does not seem overly dependent as he incorporates the insights of others as well. This chapter is vital for the rest of what Hastings wants to say, but it is also emblematic of a latent problem in the missional conversation; namely that while there is perhaps no point of reference that is more significant for the shaping of the missional conversation than that of trinitarian theology, too few authors have been able to make these reflections accessible to pastors and other Church leaders. 

So there’s some reflection on the opening section of the book. Hope to be back with some reflections on the second major section soon.

Related posts:

“Missional God, Missional Church” by Ross Hastings (Book Review), Pt.2 Multiplying Missional Leaders by Mike Breen & 3DM (Book Review) Launching Missional Communities (Book Review)