Exponential: Ed Stetzer

Missional Manifestations
Ed Stetzer

• When you move beyond a single cell you need systems to help a church live.
• There are numerous shifts taking place in church planting movements in the West.

from demographics to discernments
from models to missions
from attractional to incarnational
from uniformity to diversity (of church forms)
from professional to passionate
from seating to sending
from decisions to disciples
from additional to exponential

• Church needs to be biblically faithful, culturally relative, counter-cultural community for the gospel and the kingdom of God.

Organic Church

In the last week I've been reading the book Organic Church by Neil Cole. It's been out for a while, but I never read it largely because of the cheesy cover and the cheesy picture of Neil in the back (I know I'm so fickle). I started reading it because I got a copy for free, but had I known what was in it I would have gladly shelled out some cash. This is one of the best books I've read in a long time.

Cole provides a powerfully prophetic message for all Christians. It is true that he promotes a very non-traditional approach to church (which I resonate with), but what he writes is not focused on the form of church so much as it is focued on calling us back to Christ. Here is a tasty sample from the book.

All of us invested in the Kingdom of God long deeply to be a part of a spontaneously growing and multiplying movement where God is doing the work. We read the book of Acts, and our spirits scream to be a part of something like that. When we hear reports of the Kingdom expanding and lives changing overseas in China or India, our souls are touched in a deep place that we seldom feel, and it reminds us that our own experience is so empty. It is unfortunate that we sacrifice our heart’s desire for lesser things. The reality is that as long as we invest in human-driven efforts, we will never see what we all really want to see…There is a risk involved in seeking a spontaneous movement. We must trust God to do His part. We must be willing to place ourselves in a position where, if he does not show up, we will be seen as complete fools. Most have not been willing to take that risk. We are often afraid that God’s reputation will be tarnished. This fear is not from heaven but hell. We will never see the dramatic power of God if we are too afraid to be placed in a position that requires His deliverance.

Do we even know what it would look like to put ourselves in such a place? Are we so comfortable that we wouldn't know how to be risky if we wanted to?

Who's Purpose 3

I want to wrap up my thoughts on our current church culture and historically American values with a look at wealth. Here's some of what Scripture has to say on the topic.

"Those who love money never have enough; those who love wealth are never satisfied with their income. This too is meaningless." Ecclesiastes 5:10
"No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money." Matthew 6:24
"Then some soldiers asked him, "And what should we do?" He replied, "Don't extort money and don't accuse people falsely--be content with your pay." Luke 3:14
"And God's grace was so powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For from time to time, those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone who had need."

It would take a very long post to lay out all the Bible has to say on this very important topic, but these verses illustrate the biblical witness on a few key points. Aquiring wealth has always been a central tenent of the American dream. Entrepreneuership, upward mobility, and a solid portfolio are all things to be coveted. I'm just not sure Jesus' values would match our infatuation with wealth. A few observations about America, the church, and money--

First, in American culture and in the church, money is a very private and personal thing. The fruit of wealth is often seen in houses, vehicles, boats, and other luxuries, but don't ever ask someone how much they made last year or how much they give to Kingdom efforts--that's too personal. The passage in Acts doesn't say that everyone knew how much everyone else had, but they must have had some awareness. The wealthier people knew when there were others in their community who didn't have enough and made sure they were provided for. Now churches are big enough that we can find ways to hide from the needs of others. Our wealth and the way we use it are like our sex life--private knowledge that we keep to ourselves.

Second, Americans and the American church are never content with their current level of financial resources (Ecc and Luke). Norman Rockefeller was once asked, "How much money is enough?" He replied, "Just a little bit more." This summaries the American view of wealth well. Unfortunately it doesn't seem this is often much different in the church, it's just masked more carefully. More money is desired in the name of better programs, which we assure people will mean better ministry. I've never heard a church talk about their excesses and scale back. Rather, attention is given to how just a little more money would solve all the problems. We have adopted this mentality of finding purpose in the pursuit of just a little more wealth.

Finally, Americans have made wealth a god. We work long hours to provide as many things as possible for our families, but we remove ourselves from their lives in the process. We compare ourselves to whoever is one rung up on the financial ladder and try to figure out how we can match them, only to look up again when we get there. We assume more money to buy more things will fulfill us, only to be left empty and wanting. The god of wealth has also invaded our churches. We give preferential treatment to those who put a big check in the plate. We drool over the large houses and vehicles of congregants, never imagining that we should question their stewardship.

Our nation's history and values have taught us that wealth is good, period. This may be the most difficult area for us to embrace Kingdom values, because it will cost us comfort and status.

Holy Conversations

I had one of those holy conversations this week with a friend. It was one of the first times we've sat down and discussed Church, and it was uplifting to hear his heart, thoughts, and passions. I want to share some of his insights because I think he's one of many people that struggles with some of these things:

He’s felt a pull to become a pastor, but recently decided to hold off seminary because he has seen pastoral work lately as alot of administration and running the business side of a church. He's uniquely gifted at teaching, mentoring, and spiritual development.

He struggles with the professionalism that is pushed upon churches that grow from small to large. No longer is it about the heart of the person, but it’s about who can preach and teach best, who can sing and play best, and, sometimes even who looks best.

He's seen that spiritual growth isn’t happening at the service, and he believes people aren’t experiencing spiritual growth because they’re not in spiritual relationships with others.

Churches he has visited explain everything in three points or four tips, as if you can explain Jesus and put Him in a box. He's wondering if/how churches should embrace the mysteriousness of Christ?

This isn't about negativity toward the Church, nor do I think I have the answers. These are simply statements that I've thought about, and my friend has thought about, and I know others think about.

Who's Values Part One--Sexuality

I've been playing with an idea now for a couple weeks and am really interested in feedback (I know commenting on this blog isn't of highest importance for everyone, but I'd love to get in some face to face conversations about this).

My basic premise is this--the sins the evangelical church has been most critical of are the ones that have been most strongly opposed in our nation's history. The ones we let slide (and sometimes even promote) are the correspond to the values applauded in our nation's history. I will deal with four issues here by way of example--sexuality, alcohol consumption, wealth, and pride. Because this takes some time to develop I'm just going to take one per post.

Sexuality
I recently had a friend who was asked to marry a couple who claimed to be Christians. He asked them if they were living together and they responded that they were. He told them that if they didn't live separately until the wedding that he would not do a Christian ceremony. He would still do the ceremony (and believed that they were Christians who had gotten off track in this area), but he would do the same thing he does for people who are not Christians.

Until the sexual revolution of the 1960s the United States was a fairly conservative nation in regard to sexuality. I don't pretend people weren't having affairs, premarital sex. and homosexual sex, but these were not things people broadcast. To a large extent they were looked down upon, even outside the church (and in what I'm trying to develop that is actually more important). Then the era of free love came along and blew up the conventional sensibilities of the nation in this area. At the time, many looked down on those who led and participated in the revolution that shifted how we think about sexuality. But over the years our nation's culture has come to accept and even glorify promiscuous and liberated sexuality.

But not so with the church. We would like to point to the Bible and say that we take a strong stand on issues of sexuality because it instructs us to do so--and I don't dispute that it does. However, we don't take a strong stand on all the issues the Bible speaks to, even those it speaks to strongly, so why this one? For many years we were able to stand with our nation in affirming a certain sexual ethic. Our nation has shifted but we have remained steadfast. It seems even that may be changing.

To come back to my friend. I don't think he did the wrong thing. He took a stand on an important topic. And he did it out of love because he knew the people he was dealing with. It made them do some reflecting and helped them realize they had stopped trying to please Christ above all else. So my example of him is not a negative one, I'm just asking the question, why are we so strong on this area where sin can manifest itself?

Liquid Church

I just finished this book after having it recommended by Drew Moser. Pete Ward does a good job of interacting with philosophical, theological, sociological, and practical issues in relation to being "liquid church" (his term for thinking of church primarily in regard to relationships and connections, not congregation). But the thing that has me thinking the most is his take on how the gospel should interact with our current culture of consumerism. Ward writes--

People who are looking for God will connect to the network because it offers what they want. In this sense liquid church locates itself firmly in the consumer nature of society. It seeks to offer the reality and fullness of God in a form that people want. There is no sellout involved, no dumbing down of the message. In fact, liquid church will remain committed to an exacting orthodoxy and a committed theology...As solid church has tried to adapt to modernity, it has adopted ways of using contemporary media and communications to package faith and offer it in the marketplace. Liquid church takes some of these changes and pushes them further by taking account of a more fluid market.

Is Christianity reconcilable with consumerism?

Emerging and Missional--Part Two

Based on the reading I've done in both emerging and missional literature, and conversations I've had with people who claim to be both, it seems there are some fundamental differences between the emerging and missional churches, but that they are not mutually exclusive and many people are bringing the two together.

It is much easier to deduce the basic principle of the missional church. As Alan Hirsch says, "the church's true and authentic organizing principle is mission." This is the starting point for anything that can rightly be included under the label of missional church. The focus is on a spiritual and physical redemption of individuals and the world. Things like community, worship, gathering, prayer, service, and study sprout up through the soil of mission and in its support. This does not mean that any of these things are purely utilitarian, but the Christian life is a whole that grows best in the context of mission. It is mission that shapes our prayer life to be more about God's kingdom than ourselves, worship to overflow from the fullness of a heart that is seeing God at work, community that is forged in the heat of shared endeavor. All of these things are a part of what it means to be the people of God in this world, but they are informed by mission--it is their context.

The missional church also has an inherently anti-institutional bent. As institutions grow they take more work, time, and resources to support themselves. All of this can naturally lead to an internal focus, which is anti-missional. There are some institutional churches that are very intentional about being missional, but institution has not proven to be the most conducive setting for fostering mission. (I would also say that being anti-institutional doesn't automatically make you missional. I think less institution fits better with mission but neither necessitates the other.)

The emergent church is a little harder to pin down. From my reading it seems to be more interested in engaging the predominant Western theology and pushing its boundaries. This has led to some wonderful discussion, but the outcome of it isn't always clear.

The emerging church movement also seems to fit better with the institutional church than the missional movement. There is more discussion of how to tweak and work within existing forms to make them more artistic, participatory, and engaging.

Both the emerging and missional church movements are disproportionately fueled by people under 40, but there are strong voices in each who are older. It will be interesting to see how each of these movements continues to take shape in the future.

Emergent Discission

In a post on the Jesus Creed blog, Scot McKnight summarizes a book called Inside the Organic Church. Especially interesting to me is that Bob Whitesel, the author of the book, found in his study of 12 "organic" churches that they were very orthodox in their theology. One of the things emergent has become known for it pushing the theological envelope, so I thought this was an interesting and encouraging finding. Check out the full summary on the Jesus Creed blog.

Is the Emerging Church Missional?

Are “emergent” and “missional” connected? Both of these are words that are being used to describe movements in the church, especially (though by no means exclusively) in the West. But what, if anything, do they have to do with each other. I have run across books and websites that indicate that they are very closely tied and others that make them seem almost completely separate.

Before I give my thoughts on this I thought I’d see if anyone else has a perspective on this question. I think it is an important one because these two terms are being lumped together by some and it is important to know if this is a plausible thing to do.

Leadership Paradigms--Part One

When approaching leadership it is important to start with a biblical perspective. Leaders should be servants of those they are leading. They should pursue Christ-likeness to the point they are able to say, “follow me as I follow Christ.” Christian leaders should be characterized by integrity, humility, perseverance, selflessness, servanthood, and courage. (Matt. 20:24-28; Titus 1:5-9; James 1:2-5 to name just a few)

But these biblical values can be placed, at least to some extent, on different paradigms of leadership. In the next two posts I want to focus on two in particular—the two that are most relevant for our time. In this post I will concentrate on the paradigm of leadership I have experienced most, both in the church and outside it. It is pervasive in almost every corner of our Western world where leadership is exercised. It has a number of things that characterize it.

First, this paradigm recognizes leaders through the conferring of a position. A pastor is hired by a church and immediately has authority over people and programs. You have a problem at a store so you ask for the manager. A person is given a title and the authority of leadership comes with it. We identify leaders by their positions.

Second, this paradigm of leadership is about control. This doesn’t mean there isn’t a dispersal of tasks. Leaders can allow (or command) others to do things, but notice I just had to write that they allow others do things. They decide who gets to do what, when they do it, and how they do it. They can give up some of this control if they choose to, but it is theirs if they want it.

Third, it is largely individualized. While leaders may speak to others about their plans or decision-making, the ramifications of a decision come back to them alone. Take coaching as an example. When a team does well the head coach is given credit. When they lose he loses his job. There are assistant coaches and even players who have some input into what happens (determined by how much say the head coach wants to give them), but ultimately the head coach is held responsible for failure and lauded for victory.

Finally, in this paradigm, leaders work in ways that are structured and measurable. Good leaders make long-range plans. They produce charts and reports to detail progress. In any leadership position I have had there has been an expectation of setting measurable goals for a specific period of time. These were meant to be an objective way of deciding how well I was leading.

This leadership paradigm flows out of a mechanistic worldview. Actions have predictable outcomes. If all the pieces are put together right an organization will hum. It will be a well-oiled machine. Parts are interchangeable; it is the processes and structures that determine success or failure. The whole is the sum of the parts. Roles and functions must be clearly defined so things can run properly. Organization is seen as machine and people are parts.

Why Does the Church Exist?

In The Present Future by Reggie McNeal, he states that "The church was never intended to exist for itself." That's a pretty simple statement, but it's also the most difficult statement for many Christians today.

Think about what you often hear church people talk about (and I've definitely been more than guilty of this): I didn't like the music today. The sermon was boring. The children's program is not as good as it used to be. It's too seeker-sensitive; what about me? The color of the carpet is awful. I have a ministry to promote, but they won't let me. There's no one my age here.

We've forgotten why we exist. We need to get back to being God's redemptive instrument for the world. God invites us to join Him. And not just the pastors and other leaders in the church. You. Me. All of us.

As Bill Hybels says, "The church is the only hope of the world."