Archive | Church RSS feed for this section

Short Term Equals No Good

I’m a conversationalist at heart. I love listening to others talk. I love to ask questions and let other people answer. If you listen closely enough they’ll tell you more about themselves than they probably intended. I’d like to think that’s what happened recently during a conversation with an American church planter living in France. I was part of a group having coffee and asking questions of this American church planter in France as he talked about life, ministry, and his city. He was very knowledgeable about his city. He gave us a great history of Christianity there and how the current culture is post-modern and post-Christian. He talked about how his parents were missionaries, how his grandparents were missionaries, and how he married a French woman. He talked about his strategy for planting churches in his city and how he was in it for the long haul. But as I sat and listened to this American church planter in France I was left with two distinct opinions. One, he’s a “lifer”…and in this case that’s not a good thing. And two, he’s not a very good strategist.

This American church planter in France is a “lifer”. By that I mean that he is in his city doing his work for life. He’s been called there and he is sold out and committed to his work. This is not a bad thing at all. There are those that are called to a place and are very confident that God has called them to that place for the rest of their life. The problem with “lifer’s” is that they sometimes lose perspective. They become so much like their host culture that they take on their beliefs for what works and what doesn’t work. And in some cases, a lifer will take on the belief that short term workers do not add much value to the ministry in a given place. For this American church planter in France he has come to the conclusion, which may be correct, that real, lasting, reproducible change takes at least ten years to take root. That to expect church multiplication in under ten years is folly. This may well be the case in this French city. But this reality has affected how he values, or doesn’t value, short term missionaries. For this American church planter in France he doesn’t see the need for short term workers. In his words “they come, they leave, and no one will even know they were here. We need people that are sold out and committed to the work here in this city”. When this American church planter in France said this I was really taken off guard. I’m not a short term worker, at least according to the IMB, but many of my friends are and have been. To tell them that they came, left, and were forgotten is offensive. First of all, God knew that they were there. Secondly, I don’t find anywhere in scripture where God’s calling to a place is tied to a lifetime. God’s call is that we follow Him in making His name known. For some of us that means one place, one lifetime. For others of us, like Paul, that means that we move every few years to be a catalyst to new work. My hunch is that this American church planter in France has had some bad experience with short termers coming in, not adding value to the work, and leaving him “empty handed”. If that’s the case I feel sorry for this American church planter in France. But as they say, you can’t throw the baby out with the bath water.

Because this American church planter in France is a lifer with ill-conceived notions about short term workers he has, in effect, become a poor strategist. There is great value in short term workers. I don’t believe short term workers should be setting strategy. I do believe they can come into a city, where a solid strategy has been set, and can add value to the ministry that is in place. In a perfect scenario a long term worker should plant himself/herself in a city. They should build a strategy and team around them that can have a lasting, eternal impact. Short term workers should be brought in to implement aspects of the team’s overall strategy. Short term workers should not be expected to come in and start new work. With language learning and culture shock taking up much of the first year of a short term it’s asking too much to expect new work to take root. A short termer should be seen as an assistant to the long termer. If done correctly the short termer will not leave and be forgotten, but will be seen as a value added team member for the time they were there.

“Lifers” can be good for a city…and for a strategy. But we have to be careful that we don’t live up to the assumptions that are made about our host culture. While some assumptions turn out to be true, others turn out to limit our effectiveness. And for goodness sake, let’s not make the mistake of shunning short termers because they don’t feel called to a place for the rest of their lives. Let’s use them for the advancement of the Kingdom, for God’s glory, and their joy.

Read full storyComments { 3 }

Critiquing the Church, Part 1

I’ve been thinking about the church lately, Christ’s bride. When the majority of us hear the word “church” we immediately think of the Sunday experience, and not the collection of believers that should be working towards the continued advancement of the Kingdom of God.

My thinking has led me to want to write a couple of posts about the church, but I’ve held off for a couple of reasons. One, my friend Ernest Goodman has been writing a series of articles on the Counterintuitive Church and I wanted to make sure the direction I was going wasn’t going to duplicate or repeat things he had already written. By the way, if you haven’t taken the time to read Ernest’s series I would recommend you take the time to do it. And two, there were things I wanted to write about without being critical. I think there is a difference between offering a critique and being critical. I didn’t want to be the later. I just finished ReJesus, by Michael Frost and Alan Hirsch, and a quote in the last chapter prompted me to go ahead with my plan for a very short series of posts (2 or 3) on the church. Here’s the quote:

But the point is that somehow these people, most of them ministers, failed to recognize that Jesus was regularly and scathingly critical of the religious leaders of his faith community. Futhermore, Jesus’ seven messages to the seven churches in the book of Revelation (Rev 2:1-3:22) contain plenty of harshly critical comment directed at the church! To claim it is un-Christlike to criticize the church is to disregard the example of Jesus (185).

My first critique is that the church today is bi-polar. It doesn’t understand it’s purpose. It has no sense of direction. It doesn’t know who it’s intended for. One reason the church is bi-polar today is the overuse of the word missional. Church leaders use the word without understanding what it truly means. They use the word as though it’s another program, like the Men’s Ministry, Upwards sports, and the monthly ladies dinner. It boggles my mind that churches have gone to the point where missional is now listed on church websites as a quality. All the while the vast majority of these churches would never think it feasible to release their church members out into the community (on a Sunday) to impact the Kingdom. The same leadership that promotes their church as missional also begs that it’s members invite, invite, invite friends and family members to the next big series.

So which is it? Are you still blatantly attractional with your program driven church experience, pretending to be missional, or are you missional in your mindset but don’t know how to translate it to vision and action?

And maybe the bigger question should be: do church leaders today know who makes up the church and what it’s intended to be? And so that you don’t miss where I stand on the issue let me flesh it out. I firmly believe that the church is intended to be a collection of believers (both local and universal), and that the members of the church have been uniquely gifted for the encouragement, discipleship, and admonishment of it’s fellow members. I also believe that the church is the vehicle by which God will save his elect. The church is the body of Christ, his bride. This does not mean, however, that the Sunday church experience should not be welcoming to the not-yet-Christian.

In my second post I’ll explore more deeply the Sunday church experience and why many churches have gotten it wrong.

Read full storyComments { 0 }

Mini-Movements

I’m linking an article written March 25th by Mark Sayers about how he believes the Emerging Missional Church has fractured into mini-movements. I tend to agree with the article but struggle as I find myself spread across several of his categorizations. And maybe that’s his problem, his mini-movements are not defined or structured with the appropriate amount of specificity.

Here are his mini-movements:

  • Neo-Anabaptists
  • Neo-Calvinists
  • Neo-Missiologists
  • Neo-Clapham’s
  • Digital Pentecostals
  • Neo-Liberals
  • Blenders

I find myself spread across the neo-calvinists, neo-missiologists, and blenders (to an extent). You can find his definitions and the entire article here.

Read full storyComments { 0 }

Caleb Crider Interview

If you’re part of an American church with an interest in Europe, or you’re working/living in Europe this will probably be of interest to you.

David Phillips interviews Caleb Crider about ministry in a post-Christian Europe.

Read full storyComments { 1 }

A Different Way

Somewhere along the way it was decided, not quite sure by who, that missions and all things missions related should be primarily handled by para-church organizations (think YWAM, IMB, SIM, AIM, etc.). The IMB for example, has some 5,000 missionaries around the globe supported through the Southern Baptist Cooperative Program and direct giving from SBC church through the Lottie Moon Offering. Churches have, quite honestly, found it easier to be involved in missions by simply giving instead of going themselves. The rational that’s primarily given is that the church doesn’t have the staff, the money, or the know how to be involved overseas so they should just leave it to the “professionals”.

There are some churches, not just SBC churches, that take a lot of “mission trips”. They send a team, once a year, to a different place in need and help out in various ways. They might run sports camps for kids, or dig wells, or build houses, or…you get the point.

There are other churches who’ve made the choice to invest in a single place. They pour their resources, time, energy, and people into a country, or city, in the hopes of long term transformation. The easy one that comes to mind here is Bob Roberts, of Glocalnet and Northwood Church. They’ve adopted Vietnam and focus much of their overseas attention there.

But there is another group of churches that have a heart for investing in places and people in another country but aren’t quite sure how to go about it. They know they have to be more involved than just giving, but they may not have the knowledge base to get the ball rolling. This is where The Upstream Collective comes in. And I can’t begin to tell you all the ways that these guys can help you out (see their website for that) so let me just sum it up in a couple of words. Upstream is run by a couple of guys I admire, respect, and appreciate. After serving (and still serving) overseas they’ve decided to help put missions back where it belongs – in the church. Upstream can help with strategy, training, and vision casting. They have a heart for Europeans and want to help churches that have a heart for Europeans get started. They’ll take a group from your church on a tour of a European city to help you get a feel for life in Europe. They’ll talk through the various ways, maybe even “new” ways that your church can get involved in the lives of Europeans in the hopes of building relationships, helping someone on their journey towards Christ, and planting churches.

I can’t recommend enough the guys at Upstream. I consider them friends and know that your church would be absolutely blessed to chat with these guys.

Read full storyComments { 0 }