This week I had lunch with an old friend that was on my High School water polo team (isn’t Facebook something). He looked good and I was glad to catch up. He was able to fill me in on how all my old teammates are doing and what they are now up to. One is the team physician for an NFL team, another is a high powered attorney for a major LA law firm. One is owner and operator of several restaurants in the LA area. He asked me what I am doing. I started to tell him and was able to express how Jesus had really changed my life.
Lately I have answered this question by saying, I am a founder and director for a non-profit organization that helps resource people to follow Christ and start organic churches. That usually raises more questions about what the church is and is not. I also tend to say, I am an author as well. All of this is true, but none of it truly expresses who I am or what my true role is.
Then he asked me a question that I really struggle with answering these days. He asked, “Are you a minister?”
In earlier days that was an easy question to answer. It was a slamdunk: Yes. I was a pastor of a church--a “real” church (tongue in cheek). I went to seminary, was ordained by my denomination and would preach sermons every Sunday to a congregation that spoke of me as their pastor.
The Lord has taken me down a different path in the last ten years, however, and I do not fit in the old paradigm any longer. I tried to explain that, but it isn’t easy since our language has not caught up with the new expression of the church.
When I am not on the road, I spend a relaxing Sunday morning getting a coffee and a light breakfast while I read the paper, my Bible, and journal a bit. I am part of a church but it meets in a home on Wednesday evenings, and I am not really a pastor. I no longer preach sermons or have elder meetings. I do not do much pastoral counseling or supervise staff that run programs.
In these days, I can no longer just say I am a pastor. I function in a more apostolic role, but I can’t see myself putting that on my business card anytime too soon. As uncomfortable as I am with describing my new role in the kingdom of God I am far more at home now than when I was in the old system. It isn’t really important that I have a title or clearly understood role as it is that I fulfill all that God has called me to do one day at a time.
Today I believe that every follower of Christ is a minister. All who have the Holy Spirit are ordained. I love the new paradigm much more and am glad to discover my identity in this movement.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
The Seed of an Organic Kingdom Movement
The organic nature of any movement is found within the seed of life. Every seed contains the life of the tree within, remaining dormant and waiting to be released. You cannot substitute that seed for anything else and expect real results. A lemon seed will never produce an apple tree. The genetic code within can only produce the results it has been designed by God to grow into. We reproduce after our own kind and can do no other. We must plant the true seed, not a seed substitute.
Peter tells us that the seed within is not capable of dying and will result in a transformed life when planted in soil prepared for it:
All living things are created to procreate. The church is a living thing that is also to reproduce after its own kind. But we must recognize that the life is found in the seed, not in a program, a curriculum, a charming personality or dynamic resources. There is no substitute for the word of truth in a heart purified by confession of sin and ready to act in simple obedience.
Inorganic things can produce but not reproduce. As Christian Schwartz once said: "A coffee maker can make coffee (praise the Lord) but cannot produce new coffee makers." Those who follow Jesus are the fruit of God's Kingdom, as such we carry within the seed of life for the next generation. To not reproduce is to deny our very internal nature and is counter to God's design.
The growth occurs when the seed meets soil that is pure and cleansed and ready to obey. The growth can only come from within and not be produced from the outside in by any sort of teaching, programming or coercing. The growth occurs "all by itself" (Mark 4:28). You cannot make someone or something living grow. Paul said he planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but only God causes the growth. (1 Cor. 3:6-8)
As my mentor George Patterson once pointed out:
Peter tells us that the seed within is not capable of dying and will result in a transformed life when planted in soil prepared for it:
Since you have in obedience to the truth purified your souls for a sincere love of the brethren, fervently love one another from the heart, for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God. (1 Peter 1:22-23)
All living things are created to procreate. The church is a living thing that is also to reproduce after its own kind. But we must recognize that the life is found in the seed, not in a program, a curriculum, a charming personality or dynamic resources. There is no substitute for the word of truth in a heart purified by confession of sin and ready to act in simple obedience.
Inorganic things can produce but not reproduce. As Christian Schwartz once said: "A coffee maker can make coffee (praise the Lord) but cannot produce new coffee makers." Those who follow Jesus are the fruit of God's Kingdom, as such we carry within the seed of life for the next generation. To not reproduce is to deny our very internal nature and is counter to God's design.
The growth occurs when the seed meets soil that is pure and cleansed and ready to obey. The growth can only come from within and not be produced from the outside in by any sort of teaching, programming or coercing. The growth occurs "all by itself" (Mark 4:28). You cannot make someone or something living grow. Paul said he planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but only God causes the growth. (1 Cor. 3:6-8)
As my mentor George Patterson once pointed out:
Every time we eat, we eat the fruit of God's tremendous reproduction power given to plants and animals. Look around out of doors; it's everywhere—grass, trees, birds, bees, babies and flowers. All creation is shouting it! This is the way God works!... We ourselves don't make the church grow or reproduce, any more than pulling on a stalk of corn would make it grow.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Go Small to Go Big
I am a big thinker. Some people assume that because I do church in a small way that I am opposed to big things, and that is vastly untrue. I will not be satisfied until the whole world is changed and you can’t do that in a single church, but you can with many small ones. But the way to effect the global is to start with the microscopic.
Seth Godin boldly declares, “Small is the new big.” Contrary to the way we usually think, the way to big is really to go small. Of course this is counter intuitive. So often we try to make something grow bigger and end up doing less than we could. Jesus used the parable of leaven to show the effect of a small thing on a massive scale. He also often referred to the smallest known seed as having huge potential for earth shaking results (Matt. 17:20).
In his hugely successful book, The Tipping Point: How Little Things can make a Big Difference, Malcom Gladwell identifies three characteristics necessary for an epidemic-type spread of a trend, idea or even a virus itself: “one, contagiousness; two, the fact that little causes can have big effects; and three, that change happens not gradually but at one dramatic moment” (he calls that moment the “tipping point”). He devotes an entire section of his book to “the law of the few,” in which he cites example after example of how huge epidemic-type movements began with very few people. In fact, that is only how they begin.
Not every small thing is powerful. It matters what is within the small package. A grain of sand and a grain of wheat are both small. One has the God-given potential to eventually feed the hungry world. The other can be the catalyst to create a blister or a pearl—but only one.
Before we can change the world we must be able to change a single life. But we must change a life in such a way that the same life is able to do it all over again with someone else. That is best done in small ways that eventually affect the global. When you are looking to spread an idea virus by coordinating larger groups to do so, the whole process breaks down. But if it is as simple and small as one life to another, the virus can spread easily and each person carries the contagion.
A tiny microscopic virus is bringing an entire continent made up of dozens of nations to its knees in Africa—AIDS. This virus is passed on person to person in a very predictable manner but it spreads almost unhindered. It spreads because those infected have an internal motivation to continue doing what spreads the virus. In combating the virus we are not just trying to figure out a way to stop the virus itself but to stop the behaviors that spread it, and that is the hardest part, because it is against the natural drive in the people.
Why is small such a big deal? Small does not cost at all. Small is easy to reproduce. Small is more easily changed and exchanged. Small is mobile. Small is harder to stop. Small is intimate. Small is simple. Small infiltrates easier. Small is something people think they can do. Big does not do any of these things. We can change the world more quickly by becoming much smaller in our strategy.
If I can be vulnerable for a moment I want to share with you my greatest phobia. Until now, this was a secret known only to my wife and three kids (and boy do they have fun with it), but it is time for full disclosure. I am not afraid of large dogs, strange people or standing in high places. I have no problem in the dark or an enclosed place. I have a phobia about bugs. There, I said it. An individual bug doesn’t really bother me. I am glad to remove a spider found in the bathroom by one of my daughters without hesitation. It is when bugs swarm that I am creeped out. This has always been my greatest nightmare. Even as I write this and imagine it in my mind I feel shivers on the back of my neck. The feeling of ants all over my legs is the worst! I hate it.
The truth is we should all be a little freaked by swarms of insects; they are so overwhelming that there is almost no defense. You can have a double barrel shotgun and an automatic machine gun at the same time and you are absolutely defenseless against a swarm of killer bees. You can shoot at the swarm, and you may even hit a couple of the bees, but the swarm doesn’t even need to duck when you shoot. It will come without any slowing or adjustment after you have fired all rounds. And that is also why a decentralized movement can literally be unstoppable.
While for years now the church has invested in growing larger, the new missional movement is trying to get smaller in its focus so that it can get bigger in its impact.
Small is the new big.
From Church 3.0: Upgrades for the Future of the Church.
http://bit.ly/afvcU1
Seth Godin boldly declares, “Small is the new big.” Contrary to the way we usually think, the way to big is really to go small. Of course this is counter intuitive. So often we try to make something grow bigger and end up doing less than we could. Jesus used the parable of leaven to show the effect of a small thing on a massive scale. He also often referred to the smallest known seed as having huge potential for earth shaking results (Matt. 17:20).
In his hugely successful book, The Tipping Point: How Little Things can make a Big Difference, Malcom Gladwell identifies three characteristics necessary for an epidemic-type spread of a trend, idea or even a virus itself: “one, contagiousness; two, the fact that little causes can have big effects; and three, that change happens not gradually but at one dramatic moment” (he calls that moment the “tipping point”). He devotes an entire section of his book to “the law of the few,” in which he cites example after example of how huge epidemic-type movements began with very few people. In fact, that is only how they begin.
Not every small thing is powerful. It matters what is within the small package. A grain of sand and a grain of wheat are both small. One has the God-given potential to eventually feed the hungry world. The other can be the catalyst to create a blister or a pearl—but only one.
Before we can change the world we must be able to change a single life. But we must change a life in such a way that the same life is able to do it all over again with someone else. That is best done in small ways that eventually affect the global. When you are looking to spread an idea virus by coordinating larger groups to do so, the whole process breaks down. But if it is as simple and small as one life to another, the virus can spread easily and each person carries the contagion.
A tiny microscopic virus is bringing an entire continent made up of dozens of nations to its knees in Africa—AIDS. This virus is passed on person to person in a very predictable manner but it spreads almost unhindered. It spreads because those infected have an internal motivation to continue doing what spreads the virus. In combating the virus we are not just trying to figure out a way to stop the virus itself but to stop the behaviors that spread it, and that is the hardest part, because it is against the natural drive in the people.
Why is small such a big deal? Small does not cost at all. Small is easy to reproduce. Small is more easily changed and exchanged. Small is mobile. Small is harder to stop. Small is intimate. Small is simple. Small infiltrates easier. Small is something people think they can do. Big does not do any of these things. We can change the world more quickly by becoming much smaller in our strategy.
If I can be vulnerable for a moment I want to share with you my greatest phobia. Until now, this was a secret known only to my wife and three kids (and boy do they have fun with it), but it is time for full disclosure. I am not afraid of large dogs, strange people or standing in high places. I have no problem in the dark or an enclosed place. I have a phobia about bugs. There, I said it. An individual bug doesn’t really bother me. I am glad to remove a spider found in the bathroom by one of my daughters without hesitation. It is when bugs swarm that I am creeped out. This has always been my greatest nightmare. Even as I write this and imagine it in my mind I feel shivers on the back of my neck. The feeling of ants all over my legs is the worst! I hate it.
The truth is we should all be a little freaked by swarms of insects; they are so overwhelming that there is almost no defense. You can have a double barrel shotgun and an automatic machine gun at the same time and you are absolutely defenseless against a swarm of killer bees. You can shoot at the swarm, and you may even hit a couple of the bees, but the swarm doesn’t even need to duck when you shoot. It will come without any slowing or adjustment after you have fired all rounds. And that is also why a decentralized movement can literally be unstoppable.
While for years now the church has invested in growing larger, the new missional movement is trying to get smaller in its focus so that it can get bigger in its impact.
Small is the new big.
From Church 3.0: Upgrades for the Future of the Church.
http://bit.ly/afvcU1
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Spiritual Gift Inventories
I was asked on my blog if I like to use spiritual gift tests in my church context. I thought you might all want to hear my answer:
For the most part, I do not use gift surveys, I believe they tend to do a few negative things.
Spiritual gift tests...
As tests go, I do like the idea of a 360 view where ten of your friends you know best take your test for you (such as on Alan Hirsch's APEST gift test online http://www.theforgottenways.org/apest).
There is nothing like serving others in the body to discover what you are called to do. Failure is also a great instructor, but it tends to cost a bit more than the typical survey does.
For the most part, I do not use gift surveys, I believe they tend to do a few negative things.
Spiritual gift tests...
- Peg someone for life. We do not need the "I don't have that gift" excuse any more!
- Carry authority they should not. A survey doesn't tell you your gift. The Holy Spirit working through the body does.
- Have an unwritten bias in the test that slants people. Whoever develops the test has a point of view that slants the questions and gets tainted results.
- Take the focus off of the body and put it on the individual. We are all prone to be self absorbed already, these tests just get us looking in on ourselves and makes spiritual gift discovery about fulfilling our own needs...the opposite of what gifts are about.
- Make gift discovery simply a matter of personal preference rather than true effectiveness. All the surveys are more about what you prefer than what you actually do. The spiritual life is not to be driven by personal preference.
- Suggest that gift usage is a matter of job placement rather than HS led effectiveness. In most institutions, the roles available have a tendency to determine what usage of the gifts are defined as and limits all creative expression. Your gifts can be useful in many more avenues than a typical local church allows.
As tests go, I do like the idea of a 360 view where ten of your friends you know best take your test for you (such as on Alan Hirsch's APEST gift test online http://www.theforgottenways.org/apest).
There is nothing like serving others in the body to discover what you are called to do. Failure is also a great instructor, but it tends to cost a bit more than the typical survey does.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Long Live Organic Church! A Response 5
One of the common questions I am asked about organic churches is regarding their lifespan. In discussing the longevity of organic church movements, we must address the fact that organic church communities typically have far shorter lifespan than more established institutional expressions. I do not deny this even though we've only been at it for ten years now so we hardly have any empirical data. I believe, however, that a movement’s longevity is not determined by the lifespan of the churches alone. In fact, I believe there is a more important factor to consider.
The contrast between micro churches and mega churches has often been compared to the differences between rabbits and elephants. The analogy is about the reproductive rate of very different creatures. Compare the two:
If you locked away a male and female elephant for three years, you may end up with three elephants. If you locked away a male and female rabbit for the same time, believe it or not you would need a much larger room! At the end of three years you could have 476,000,000 rabbits.
The rate of reproduction is significant in the success of a species. Both rabbits and elephants are beautiful living creatures that reproduce. The elephant lives much longer than the rabbit—but the rabbit will never be on an endangered species list. The elephant often is. In fact, the earlier variety of elephant known as the Woolly Mammoth is extinct, never to walk the earth again. The world would be a lesser place if either species were eradicated. But there is something more to the analogy. This is a lesson for us about the longevity of a movement, not just its reproductive rate. When it comes to survival of a species a rapid reproductive rate is far more potent than a long lifespan.
From a Single Legacy to a Saturating Presence
The survival of a species is determined by a few factors: birth rate, longevity and death rate. From the year 2000 to 2005 there have been 4,009 new conventional churches planted and 3,707 churches that died—a net gain of about three hundred (David T. Olson, The American Church in Crisis, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007, p. 120). I guess that means we can continue. But there is one other factor we must measure if we want to survive. We must also consider the population increase of our nation; then we can calculate how many churches must be in the plus side of the equation if we truly want to determine viability. According to Olson’s work, we needed to have a gain of 3,000 more churches than we did during that same time period just to stay even with population growth! (p. 120) To actually break-even we needed to start ten times as many churches. So we are not staying steady, we are rapidly losing ground, heading past irrelevance and nearer extinction every year.
The question of sustainability and longevity is not just an intellectual exercise. It is not just our influence on society that we are talking about but our very survival. Christ will build His church and we will survive, and I believe the rising organic church movement is part of His solution.
While the lifespan of the organic churches is shorter than more institutional churches, the reproductive rate is many times higher. In a recent survey of CMA leadership nearly one hundred percent of the churches represented (52:53) had planted a church in the previous year. Of the churches that started a new church in the previous five years 30% of them started six or more new churches. About 30% of our daughter churches have had grand-daughter churches.
While more institutional expressions of church have a longer potential lifespan, more organic expressions have far greater reproductive rate. Both qualities factor into the longevity of a movement. Many prefer the longer lifespan; CMA has chosen to invest more in the reproductive rate. It is not really possible yet to determine the lifespan of our organic churches as we have only been at this for about 10 years. I am currently part of a church that is thriving nine years after its initial birth. This particular church, however, is a grand daughter church of the first one I started and has sent off 30+ people to start new works in those nine years.
In the church world a lengthy lifespan has been the primary concern for a long time. I believe that for far too long we have over emphasized the church’s lifespan and over looked the church’s reproductive rate.
For us, if a church lasts one year but plants 3 churches it is still a success and the life of the Church lives on. If a church lives 100 years and does not plant any daughter churches it is less than successful, no matter how large it grows because the life begins and ends with it. We are commanded to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth…not to live forever as we are now.
The contrast between micro churches and mega churches has often been compared to the differences between rabbits and elephants. The analogy is about the reproductive rate of very different creatures. Compare the two:
If you locked away a male and female elephant for three years, you may end up with three elephants. If you locked away a male and female rabbit for the same time, believe it or not you would need a much larger room! At the end of three years you could have 476,000,000 rabbits.
The rate of reproduction is significant in the success of a species. Both rabbits and elephants are beautiful living creatures that reproduce. The elephant lives much longer than the rabbit—but the rabbit will never be on an endangered species list. The elephant often is. In fact, the earlier variety of elephant known as the Woolly Mammoth is extinct, never to walk the earth again. The world would be a lesser place if either species were eradicated. But there is something more to the analogy. This is a lesson for us about the longevity of a movement, not just its reproductive rate. When it comes to survival of a species a rapid reproductive rate is far more potent than a long lifespan.
From a Single Legacy to a Saturating Presence
The survival of a species is determined by a few factors: birth rate, longevity and death rate. From the year 2000 to 2005 there have been 4,009 new conventional churches planted and 3,707 churches that died—a net gain of about three hundred (David T. Olson, The American Church in Crisis, Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007, p. 120). I guess that means we can continue. But there is one other factor we must measure if we want to survive. We must also consider the population increase of our nation; then we can calculate how many churches must be in the plus side of the equation if we truly want to determine viability. According to Olson’s work, we needed to have a gain of 3,000 more churches than we did during that same time period just to stay even with population growth! (p. 120) To actually break-even we needed to start ten times as many churches. So we are not staying steady, we are rapidly losing ground, heading past irrelevance and nearer extinction every year.
The question of sustainability and longevity is not just an intellectual exercise. It is not just our influence on society that we are talking about but our very survival. Christ will build His church and we will survive, and I believe the rising organic church movement is part of His solution.
While the lifespan of the organic churches is shorter than more institutional churches, the reproductive rate is many times higher. In a recent survey of CMA leadership nearly one hundred percent of the churches represented (52:53) had planted a church in the previous year. Of the churches that started a new church in the previous five years 30% of them started six or more new churches. About 30% of our daughter churches have had grand-daughter churches.
While more institutional expressions of church have a longer potential lifespan, more organic expressions have far greater reproductive rate. Both qualities factor into the longevity of a movement. Many prefer the longer lifespan; CMA has chosen to invest more in the reproductive rate. It is not really possible yet to determine the lifespan of our organic churches as we have only been at this for about 10 years. I am currently part of a church that is thriving nine years after its initial birth. This particular church, however, is a grand daughter church of the first one I started and has sent off 30+ people to start new works in those nine years.
In the church world a lengthy lifespan has been the primary concern for a long time. I believe that for far too long we have over emphasized the church’s lifespan and over looked the church’s reproductive rate.
For us, if a church lasts one year but plants 3 churches it is still a success and the life of the Church lives on. If a church lives 100 years and does not plant any daughter churches it is less than successful, no matter how large it grows because the life begins and ends with it. We are commanded to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth…not to live forever as we are now.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Long Live Organic Church! A Response 4
Suicidal Tendencies?
Church Multiplication Associates having figured out the content represented in this article so far, has attempted to live by these principles. We remain vibrant and alive because we choose to not maintain our life. In fact, as an organization goes, we have consistently made suicidal corporate decisions. Well, perhaps suicidal is too strong a word, we simply haven't fought to stay alive or preserve our organizational life.
We have many resources we have spent money, time and energy producing that end up not reproducing in multiple contexts and are now collecting dust on a shelf. We call it the Shelf of Shame. Many of the resources on this shelf produce excellent addition results (church growth) in a specific cultural context, but will not work overseas or will not produce exponential results (church multiplication). We could make a profit by making these tools available to the church growth market. Even though we have a vested interest in the success of these resources, we chose instead to not make them available to others.
I have found that good is often the enemy of the best, so we shelve anything that is less than fruitful in multiplicative results on an international scale. I believe any healthy ministry should have a shelf of shame where they are willing to put aside valuable resources that no longer are contributing to the overall purpose of the organization. This is an expression of dying to oneself and the life that comes from it is found in the vital resources that have passed the scrutiny of the shelf of shame. Because we were willing to allow good ministry tools to die better ones emerged in their place, thus proving the concept that if we die for Christ’s sake we will find life.
For three years in a row we have lost thousands of dollars hosting a conference for our leaders. A business could never survive with such decisions, but we are not a business. We believe that God wanted us to host the conference and that if that were so He would provide, and He has. I have to wonder if God is more gracious in provision because we are generous in this way. If we did not sense God leading us to do the conference than we would not have done it.
The Greenhouse Organic Church training is by far a key factor in our success as a movement. It has nearly doubled in people being trained every year. If we had a self-preservationist mentality we would consider the Greenhouse our bread and butter staple and protect it, but we do not. We decided to give it away to any faithful practitioner who asks for it. We will give them the complete powerpoint, sample film clips and workbook masters to anyone who asks as long as they have started three to five organic churches after they went through the training. By not protecting our bread and butter but giving it away we have doubled and then tripled the number of proven trainers and our movement has longer legs because of it. Again, life was the result of dying to self.
These are just a few of the examples of how we have chosen to not sustain ourselves in conventional ways so that God Himself can be our source of provision and life. It is our hope that as long as we cling with white knuckles to Jesus for our sustenance and hold loosely to all else we will continue to have a vibrant expression of life and delay the decay of institutionalization. That is our theory and it has been proven right so far. Who knows how long our movement can live if we are unwilling to keep it alive?
Church Multiplication Associates having figured out the content represented in this article so far, has attempted to live by these principles. We remain vibrant and alive because we choose to not maintain our life. In fact, as an organization goes, we have consistently made suicidal corporate decisions. Well, perhaps suicidal is too strong a word, we simply haven't fought to stay alive or preserve our organizational life.
We have many resources we have spent money, time and energy producing that end up not reproducing in multiple contexts and are now collecting dust on a shelf. We call it the Shelf of Shame. Many of the resources on this shelf produce excellent addition results (church growth) in a specific cultural context, but will not work overseas or will not produce exponential results (church multiplication). We could make a profit by making these tools available to the church growth market. Even though we have a vested interest in the success of these resources, we chose instead to not make them available to others.
I have found that good is often the enemy of the best, so we shelve anything that is less than fruitful in multiplicative results on an international scale. I believe any healthy ministry should have a shelf of shame where they are willing to put aside valuable resources that no longer are contributing to the overall purpose of the organization. This is an expression of dying to oneself and the life that comes from it is found in the vital resources that have passed the scrutiny of the shelf of shame. Because we were willing to allow good ministry tools to die better ones emerged in their place, thus proving the concept that if we die for Christ’s sake we will find life.
For three years in a row we have lost thousands of dollars hosting a conference for our leaders. A business could never survive with such decisions, but we are not a business. We believe that God wanted us to host the conference and that if that were so He would provide, and He has. I have to wonder if God is more gracious in provision because we are generous in this way. If we did not sense God leading us to do the conference than we would not have done it.
The Greenhouse Organic Church training is by far a key factor in our success as a movement. It has nearly doubled in people being trained every year. If we had a self-preservationist mentality we would consider the Greenhouse our bread and butter staple and protect it, but we do not. We decided to give it away to any faithful practitioner who asks for it. We will give them the complete powerpoint, sample film clips and workbook masters to anyone who asks as long as they have started three to five organic churches after they went through the training. By not protecting our bread and butter but giving it away we have doubled and then tripled the number of proven trainers and our movement has longer legs because of it. Again, life was the result of dying to self.
These are just a few of the examples of how we have chosen to not sustain ourselves in conventional ways so that God Himself can be our source of provision and life. It is our hope that as long as we cling with white knuckles to Jesus for our sustenance and hold loosely to all else we will continue to have a vibrant expression of life and delay the decay of institutionalization. That is our theory and it has been proven right so far. Who knows how long our movement can live if we are unwilling to keep it alive?
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Long Live Organic Church! A Response 3
The Sin of Self-Preservation
Our organizations avoid at all costs a theology of death, but the opposite is not a theology of life, for life is not what you will find in churches that strive to avoid death. I don’t know how it happened, but sometime in history we bought into a theology of safe. We think that we should do what is safe, for ourselves, for our families, and for our churches. In fact, we are convinced that anything that is unsafe must be outside of God’s will and is thoroughly un-American and un-Christian. A theology of safe is put in place as a defensive measure to avoid death. This leads us right down the path of self-preservation.
We often approach church and ministry with a theology of SAFE.
Safe is…
Self-preservation = our mission
Avoidance of the world and risk = wisdom
Financial security = responsible faith
Education = maturity
Does that not describe many of the churches, denominations or ministries you have encountered? Some of you have been on elder or deacon boards that are perfectly described by this acronym. I know I have. In fact, it almost seems like our default response. Our instinct is to preserve our life. It seems so natural to surrender to the current that is self-preservation. It is a fight to stay close to a theology of death.
Johannes Hoekendijk, a Dutch theologian who taught at Union Theological Seminary in New York during the 1950s, once defined the church’s well being as, “when she cannot count on anything anymore but God’s promises.” That is life!
Self-preservation is actively choosing an alternative to the life of our God. It is a direct move away from faith in the life giving and sustaining Savior. God created us with an instinct for self-preservation. It is not a sin to want to live. It is human instinct to want to survive. It is a sin to want to live without God’s life source. Use that desire to live as motivation to die, for that is the only path that leads to true life in God’s upside-down kingdom.
Preserving oneself separate from God’s life is not just a sin; it is blaspheme. It is taking your own place as the life-giver. Self-preservation means that you are the one who gives and sustains life, which is blasphemous. It is also the path to self-destruction, not life. As Jesus said so strongly and repeated often: “The one who finds his life loses it.” (Matt. 10:39) As a consequence of the sin of self-preservation, literally tens of thousands of Christians and churches are deceived into a “churchianity” that is carried out by men, for men, under the name of God. I wonder if God likes getting the credit for all of the crap we do.
When presented with the choice: self-preservation or the cross, for the servant of God there should be no choice. We follow Christ to the cross or we do not follow Him at all. He said, “If any wishes to come after Me, let him deny himself, pick up his cross and follow Me.” (Luke 9:23-25)
Jesus said clearly, “He who does not take up his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.” (Matt. 10:39)
Why is death to self so important? Well consider this, without death you cannot have a resurrection. Without death there would not be any Gospel or salvation…or even life itself. Perhaps it is time that we embrace a theology of death.
This is what a theology of death looks like…
Die daily to who we are
Empowerment of others (not self) is our life
Acceptance of risk is normative
Theology is not just knowledge, but practice
Hold tight to Christ with an open hand for everything else.
Unless we are willing to die we will not live. It is that simple. Death is the path to life. Conversely, holding on to life appears to be the path to death. We are to die to self because it is the only way we can live for Jesus. We can only have one master. Either we will live for ourselves or we will live for Jesus. This is why we must put ourselves to death every day.
The words of Jesus having to do with death are usually only applied to an individual—a disciple. And the verse should be applied in this way. I have found, though, that the truth contained is a universal principle, which also applies to any organization made up of disciples, such as a church.
More then once, In fact, I have found myself in a place where I was a voice of leadership to a dying organization. I have “pulled the plug” on ministries a few times. I am the Doctor Kervorkian of Christian organizations. I have had to preside over the deaths of a bible study, a Sunday School, a church and a publishing ministry board. In each case I have led the people involved to understand that death to the organization is the best solution.
What is ironic is that all the organizations I have had the courage to lead toward death have never died. If anything, they were already dead; I simply said it out loud. When we actually “pulled the plug” publicly the ministries all were reborn with new life and new vision. The actual acceptance of death ignited a spark of life for each one and a new identity for the organization followed. That is when I discovered that these truths that Jesus is giving to us are universal laws that can also have a corporate application, and not merely individual.
Just as Jesus said, “He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake is the one who will find it.” Every time I have decided to acknowledge a dying ministry and we decide to die, we have actually chosen the very thing that brings life!
In fact, I have come to believe that the health of any organization can be evaluated in direct proportion to its willingness to die. The more vested they are in self-preservation the less health they will have. The more willing to die so that the Kingdom can flourish, the healthier the organization is. Perhaps you should take a minute and do a little self-evaluation in this regard with your own church or ministry.
Imagine all that would happen if our churches adopted a theology of death in a city. What would happen if the First Baptist Church viewed the First Brethren Church as their own family and sought their welfare above their own and vice versa? What if the Pentecostal Church was more interested in the success of the Presbyterian Church than their own? What if these churches shared their resources freely and generously? I guarantee you that God would be pleased and honor such love. I also am confident that the people of the city would notice it. I imagine that the entire spiritual climate of the city would be shifted.
This is counter intuitive. It is the opposite of the norm, and it is so right. The results would be a vibrant faith and life.
Our organizations avoid at all costs a theology of death, but the opposite is not a theology of life, for life is not what you will find in churches that strive to avoid death. I don’t know how it happened, but sometime in history we bought into a theology of safe. We think that we should do what is safe, for ourselves, for our families, and for our churches. In fact, we are convinced that anything that is unsafe must be outside of God’s will and is thoroughly un-American and un-Christian. A theology of safe is put in place as a defensive measure to avoid death. This leads us right down the path of self-preservation.
We often approach church and ministry with a theology of SAFE.
Safe is…
Self-preservation = our mission
Avoidance of the world and risk = wisdom
Financial security = responsible faith
Education = maturity
Does that not describe many of the churches, denominations or ministries you have encountered? Some of you have been on elder or deacon boards that are perfectly described by this acronym. I know I have. In fact, it almost seems like our default response. Our instinct is to preserve our life. It seems so natural to surrender to the current that is self-preservation. It is a fight to stay close to a theology of death.
Johannes Hoekendijk, a Dutch theologian who taught at Union Theological Seminary in New York during the 1950s, once defined the church’s well being as, “when she cannot count on anything anymore but God’s promises.” That is life!
Self-preservation is actively choosing an alternative to the life of our God. It is a direct move away from faith in the life giving and sustaining Savior. God created us with an instinct for self-preservation. It is not a sin to want to live. It is human instinct to want to survive. It is a sin to want to live without God’s life source. Use that desire to live as motivation to die, for that is the only path that leads to true life in God’s upside-down kingdom.
Preserving oneself separate from God’s life is not just a sin; it is blaspheme. It is taking your own place as the life-giver. Self-preservation means that you are the one who gives and sustains life, which is blasphemous. It is also the path to self-destruction, not life. As Jesus said so strongly and repeated often: “The one who finds his life loses it.” (Matt. 10:39) As a consequence of the sin of self-preservation, literally tens of thousands of Christians and churches are deceived into a “churchianity” that is carried out by men, for men, under the name of God. I wonder if God likes getting the credit for all of the crap we do.
When presented with the choice: self-preservation or the cross, for the servant of God there should be no choice. We follow Christ to the cross or we do not follow Him at all. He said, “If any wishes to come after Me, let him deny himself, pick up his cross and follow Me.” (Luke 9:23-25)
Jesus said clearly, “He who does not take up his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.” (Matt. 10:39)
Why is death to self so important? Well consider this, without death you cannot have a resurrection. Without death there would not be any Gospel or salvation…or even life itself. Perhaps it is time that we embrace a theology of death.
This is what a theology of death looks like…
Die daily to who we are
Empowerment of others (not self) is our life
Acceptance of risk is normative
Theology is not just knowledge, but practice
Hold tight to Christ with an open hand for everything else.
Unless we are willing to die we will not live. It is that simple. Death is the path to life. Conversely, holding on to life appears to be the path to death. We are to die to self because it is the only way we can live for Jesus. We can only have one master. Either we will live for ourselves or we will live for Jesus. This is why we must put ourselves to death every day.
The words of Jesus having to do with death are usually only applied to an individual—a disciple. And the verse should be applied in this way. I have found, though, that the truth contained is a universal principle, which also applies to any organization made up of disciples, such as a church.
More then once, In fact, I have found myself in a place where I was a voice of leadership to a dying organization. I have “pulled the plug” on ministries a few times. I am the Doctor Kervorkian of Christian organizations. I have had to preside over the deaths of a bible study, a Sunday School, a church and a publishing ministry board. In each case I have led the people involved to understand that death to the organization is the best solution.
What is ironic is that all the organizations I have had the courage to lead toward death have never died. If anything, they were already dead; I simply said it out loud. When we actually “pulled the plug” publicly the ministries all were reborn with new life and new vision. The actual acceptance of death ignited a spark of life for each one and a new identity for the organization followed. That is when I discovered that these truths that Jesus is giving to us are universal laws that can also have a corporate application, and not merely individual.
Just as Jesus said, “He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake is the one who will find it.” Every time I have decided to acknowledge a dying ministry and we decide to die, we have actually chosen the very thing that brings life!
In fact, I have come to believe that the health of any organization can be evaluated in direct proportion to its willingness to die. The more vested they are in self-preservation the less health they will have. The more willing to die so that the Kingdom can flourish, the healthier the organization is. Perhaps you should take a minute and do a little self-evaluation in this regard with your own church or ministry.
Imagine all that would happen if our churches adopted a theology of death in a city. What would happen if the First Baptist Church viewed the First Brethren Church as their own family and sought their welfare above their own and vice versa? What if the Pentecostal Church was more interested in the success of the Presbyterian Church than their own? What if these churches shared their resources freely and generously? I guarantee you that God would be pleased and honor such love. I also am confident that the people of the city would notice it. I imagine that the entire spiritual climate of the city would be shifted.
This is counter intuitive. It is the opposite of the norm, and it is so right. The results would be a vibrant faith and life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)