Intentional Faith

Michael Kimpan from Illinois has some needed thoughts for this day:

The culture wars wage on. It seems just about everyone has an opinion on Chick-fil-A these days. The "Do you like their chicken sandwiches and waffle fries?" discussion has been traded for asking whether or not you’ll be boycotting the fast-food-chicken chain for their stance on gay marriage.

From the maker of The Muppets to the Mayors of Beantown and the Windy City, the list of folks cutting ties with the chicken chain is growing. The culture wars are in full swing, complete with protests, blog posts, name-calling and threats of glitter bomb violence. As you probably know, a couple weeks ago, Chick-fil-A president Dan Cathy made comments in an interview with the Baptist Press that have brought some attention from groups advocating equal rights for same-sex couples. This, on the heels of a report from LGBT equality group Equality Matters, which stated that Chick-fil-A had donated over "$2 million to anti-gay groups in 2010." Newsy politics picked up on the interview and made this video, and that’s when things started to really heat up. Roughly 6,000 people have signed a pledge to boycott Chick-fil-A, while others rallied behind former Arkansas governor and one-time presidential candidate Mike Huckabees’ declaration of August 1st as "Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day." Christian opinions emerged all over social media networks and the blogosphere.

As often happens, these voices led to a flurry of other voices from both sides of the aisle. Some reasonable and well-intentioned. Many not. Unfortunately, the discussion has brought out the worst in American Evangelicalism. Clear, balanced conversation has been traded in for simply shouting past one another. Even the most helpful dialogue starters seem to be inevitably overrun with hate-filled comments slung back and forth across perspectives.

In short, this thing blew up.

If only Jesus had said something specifically regarding how to treat people who think differently than we do.

Untouchables

Imagine the scene. Jesus just finished what is now his best known teaching—the Sermon on the Mount—a practical manifesto for this new Way. He’s just touched on nearly everything, and their heads must have been spinning as they tried to make sense of it all. Key phrases still lingered in the ears of the listeners, now making their way down the rocky path.

"Treat people the same way you would like to be treated."

"Don’t just love those who look, act and think like you—love your enemies, too."

As the Great Teacher led the way down the mountain, perhaps in an effort to put skin on his words, Matthew in his gospel describes a leper approaching. One who is unclean. Rejected. Perhaps even sinful. From beyond the borders of community the outcast approaches, asking if this "christ" would be willing to make him clean. And what does the rabbi do?

He touches him.

This leper’s dying flesh was literally eating away at him, and Jesus breaks Jewish custom and law, reaches out his hand and touches the man. In front of the crowds who followed him, watching. His contact immediately brings healing and restoration—life to that which was dead.

What did his followers think? Did this encounter change how they viewed the next leper they saw, shunned by the masses as he crawled through the streets declaring, "Unclean! Unclean!"?

the same week western Christianity was abuzz about whether or not Rob Bell is a universalist, a 9.0 earthquake and devastating tsunami hit Japan, killing over 25,000 people and injuring some 10,000. But we wanted to talk about Rob Bell.

Does it change us?

The last time the church’s dirty laundry got aired with this type of excitement was in 2011 when Rob Bell was just about to release a book and let a teaser trailer slip in which he asked the now infamous question, "Ghandi is in hell? He is? And someone knows for sure, and felt the need to let the rest of us know?"

That question unleashed a slew of blog posts prior to the book’s release declaring that Rob Bell was a heretic, claiming he doesn’t believe in hell. For many within Christendom, Rob Bell became untouchable.

It was an interesting debate that certainly got people thinking about an important subject, but it too often devolved into bickering and line-drawing. Interestingly, the same week western Christianity was abuzz about whether or not Rob Bell is a universalist, a 9.0 earthquake and devastating tsunami hit Japan, killing over 25,000 people and injuring some 10,000.

But we wanted to talk about Rob Bell.

And it seems, in the midst of worldwide pain and heartache in recent weeks—the tragedy at the premier of The Dark Knight Rises, the Colorado fires, the Penn State abuse report, the Syrian massacres, unrest in the Middle East or even the drama surrounding the Olympics, that Christians would have plenty to not only talk about, but plenty in which we have an opportunity to participate with God in his redemptive plan for the reconciliation of all things.

But we want to talk about Chick-fil-A.

This begs the question—if Jesus were leading us down the mountain today, where would he be leading humanity? Probably not into the ring to fight each other over this issue. The seeming inability of many Christians to appropriately engage the LGBT community is merely symptomatic of a much deeper issue—how we view "the Other."

The Other

The issue is not homosexuality. We do the same with Muslims and Hindus, with Atheists and Agnostics. We do it with Christians that think differently regarding heaven and hell, baptism or remarriage, or those who get a little too charismatic when their favorite worship song is played. We do it with anyone who we view as "the Other."

The real issue is us. We struggle to "put skin" on the words and message of Christ with anyone who thinks differently than us. Too often, we demand conformity prior to connection. When we approach one another as brothers and sisters—image bearers of the God we claim to serve—and celebrate what we have in common, we better position ourselves to helpful dialogue in the midst of disagreement. We carry divine potential for healing and restoration. We have an opportunity and responsibility to allow our words and actions to surge with the power and energy of a life of love.

Here’s a question: what it would look like if we, instead of taking sides in the Chick-Fil-A debate, simply stretched out our hands and touched the Other?

In 604, Pope Gregory wrote about the "Seven Deadly Sins" which included pride, gluttony, envy, lust, anger, greed, and laziness. In the spirit of the Pope’s top seven, here’s my list of "Seven Deadly Sins of the Pulpit."

1. Preaching Christ Without the Cross.

No-cost Christianity. Paul was determined to know and preach nothing except Christ and Christ crucified (1 Corinthians 2:2). Today it seems we preach everything but Christ and the cross, causing many to live as enemies of the cross (Philippians 3:18).

2. Preaching Salvation Without Sanctification.

No-change Christianity. So many claim Christ today with no evidence or change in their lives, and the pulpit is at least partially to blame.

3. Preaching Decisions Without Discipleship.

No-commitment Christianity. I know we are getting crowds and decisions, but are we making disciples?

4. Preaching Love Without Lordship.

No-compliance Christianity. Jesus is Lord, and because He is Lord, He heals, delivers, provides, and saves.

5. Preaching Prosperity Without Purpose.

No-cause Christianity. God blesses us so that we can be a blessing.

6. Preaching Blessing Without Birthright.

No-covenant Christianity. Esau threw away his birthright and still expected a blessing. It does not work that way. If we want the blessing, we must accept the covenantal responsibilities that go with the birthright.

7. Preaching Revival Without Reformation.

No-transformation Christianity. We are called to be salt and light, to impact individuals and cultures, families and nations. The gospel is supposed to be transformational.

Mike Slaughter offers some profound thoughts on church growth!

"Church growth" was the mantra of the 1980s and 1990s. I attended my first "Breaking the Two Hundred Barrier" conference shortly after becoming Ginghamsburg’s pastor in 1979.

Later I enrolled in "Breaking Four Hundred" and "Breaking Eight Hundred."

We became experts at methodologies that involved small group and Sunday school ministries. When it was trendy to do so, we shifted from a programmatic approach to a cell-driving approach. We began to develop associations around the successful megachurches of that day. We learned about the pastor as CEO, and I adopted that model. In the late 1990s, I really thought the contemporary megachurch would be the church of the future—it was the kind of church almost everyone seemed to aspire to become. Our culture preferred Wal-Mart superstores to the corner drugstore and giant Home Depots to local hardware stores. It made sense for churches to follow that same pattern.

As it turns out, in order to move forward, I have had to unlearn the megachurch and CEO models. If we continue to copy the models of the 1980s and 1990s, we’re going to miss the next generation. A one-size-fits-all approach toward growth will definitely not be the most effective model of the twenty-first century.

Change is so constant today that no one can predict the effective church of the future, yet I don’t believe it will be the shopping-mall-sized megachurch. As many growing churches have demonstrated, once you exceed an attendance of four hundred, a majority of growth results from transfers, not new believers. Some megachurches have seen success in reaching unchurched populations, but too often church growth in the United States and Canada does not represent net gains for the kingdom of God.

For any organization to have an impact, it needs a radical product, and the church’s radical product is revolutionary people—real followers of Jesus Christ. As churches take seriously Jesus’ call to discipleship, they change from consumers to missional movements of God who demonstrate both personal and social holiness.

At the end of Jesus’ earthly ministry, his church had only 120 people, and his leadership ended in scandal as he was convicted and executed by religious authorities. No one would pay to go to Jesus’ church-growth seminar. Yet you and I are Christ-followers today because of those 120 people and the worldwide movement they ignited. Instead of focusing on numbers of people, Jesus focused on the people themselves.

Likewise, UnLearning churches will focus more on church health than church growth. Healthy organisms grow naturally. Churches that are healthy tend to grow in size, but life transformation—not church growth—is their measure of success. The UnLearning church doesn’t fixate on how it can grow toward human standards of greatness. Its leaders would jump at a chance to take on a community of one hundred radical followers of Jesus rather than a minimum-commitment crowd of several thousand.

At Ginghamsburg, we’ve learned that sometimes our shifts to higher quality have cost us quantity. At one point, we wanted to offer a talkback time after the Saturday afternoon worship celebration. It would meet a real need for personal interaction for those who attended, and it changed lives. But this strategic focus created some time constraints, and it prevented us from leading a second celebration later that evening.

We did what promoted life-change, not what made the most business sense or would gather the largest crowds. We committed ourselves to the real business of Jesus—life transformation—and not to the sometimes superficial business of church growth.

God has chosen you, called you, gifted you, and promised a fulfillment of your life mission. God would not create you for failure. Your success is based on your willingness to risk stepping out and obediently following God. All of us experience seasons of doubt and frustration; UnLearning leaders step out of the boat anyway.

UnLearning is not about continuing what you are already doing and simply slapping on a new slogan, better technology, or some other additive.

The challenge is to hear and obey God with a sense of radical abandonment. The result will be new ways of ministering to people, using the resources God has already given to you.

UnLearning is about going a different direction. UnLearning means repentance. It requires us to identify ways we were wrong and to rebuild in a new direction. UnLearning is about breaking away from the pack, because a crowd will always be slower to respond to the radical voice of Jesus Christ. UnLearning is about ways the Holy Spirit can adjust your leadership skills and attitudes; then you, in turn, can lead the way for a similar transformation in others. Most importantly, UnLearning is about experience.

Leaders who UnLearn are a different breed from what you may be used to. They are willing to fail. They break their own rules—at least the rules that prohibit people from becoming passionate followers of Jesus. UnLearning churches demonstrate an uncompromising approach to church mission and ministry. The methods may seem new, but the approach follows an ancient call.

At the end of Jesus’ earthly ministry, his church had only 120 people, and his leadership ended in scandal as he was convicted and executed by religious authorities. No one would pay to go to Jesus’ church-growth seminar. Yet you and I are Christ-followers today because of those 120 people and the worldwide movement they ignited. Instead of focusing on numbers of people, Jesus focused on the people themselves.

UnLearning churches focus more on connecting people to meaning than to activity. Fifteen years ago, we would have emphasized getting people to show up for church programs and listen-and-learn meetings. We would have sponsored a seminar and gauged its success by how many people attended. Now we measure success by asking, "How are people finding life-change and purpose through the experience?" People are not looking for church meetings as much as life meaning. We want to know if their church experience makes a difference in their relationships, parenting skills, Christian witness, and stewardship.

This paradigm translates into the organization’s structure, as well. Major businesses operate with one board, but too often tiny churches become immobilized by layers of committees. They can spend hours debating what color carpeting to put in the church narthex or the precise wording of the congregation’s statement of beliefs. Ginghamsburg finds that its people have neither the time nor the patience for multiple committee activities. So we work through one committee of nine people called the Leadership Board. No more staff-parish, missions, or finance committees.

Today’s marketing gurus understand that today’s culture isn’t looking for information about products. Just how much could you write down about a Nike shoe after watching one television ad about it? Today’s culture isn’t looking to understand. Nike commercials don’t talk about or even show athletic apparel. Instead, they offer a thirty-second experience.

The church could learn something from Nike. People don’t want information about your religion—what people really want is a life-altering experience. UnLearning churches understand that. It’s not about policies and procedures, or even morality or ideology. It’s about relationships. It’s about creating environments where people can experience God.

UnLearning churches must be environments of trust. They must create safe spaces where the Spirit can work through people’s inquiring quests for God. They welcome people who don’t give or have all the "right" answers. They invite people to ask honest questions without chastising folks for struggling with the answers. They create communities of grace-space, allowing seekers the freedom to deal with the deepest questions of their hearts. Through their own honesty, congregational leaders demonstrate that the church is a safe space for questioning.

Imagine a people who live in an environment of grace and unconditional love.

Imagine a safe space where we can be honest enough to work on our "stuff." In this place, we find the freedom to tell the truth of who we really are on the inside. We can move out of fear and into trust. We can begin to truly live and to make a difference in God’s created purpose, empowered to leave the safe spaces to practice authentic love in the dangerous places of life.

Being a pastor is similar to being a parent, in some ways. Leaders of UnLearning churches are charged with preparing their congregations to head out from the safe space of the church into a world in desperate need of God’s love. They must demonstrate that faith in the God of the universe means being uncomfortable, having your life turned upside-down and inside-out for the sake of God, following the Spirit into the dangerous and unpredictable places of life.

This is the ultimate challenge for pastors, in that it is much harder to inspire people to trust an unpredictable Spirit and to love sacrificially in a dangerous world than it is to simply dictate beliefs. But look at Jesus’ words in John 15:9-10: "As the Father has loved me, so I have also loved you; abide in my love. If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love." Jesus’ command doesn’t say anything about belief. Rather, it is our love that determines our actions in life, not our intellectual beliefs. Jesus goes on to say, "I have said these things to you so that my joy may be in you, and that your joy may be complete. This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you." (John 15:11-12)

Jesus is calling your church not to religious belief, but to an affair of the heart. This world doesn’t need another institution that goes out and tells people what to do and what to believe. Jesus is building and forming is a culture of reckless love. Help him lead your church to that place.

Source: http://www.churchleaders.com/index.php?news=138178/

Most of us have heard a variation of this statement: “The United States is becoming increasingly racially and ethnically diverse. To stay ‘relevant’ we must adapt to this new reality.”

I have often wondered exactly what this statement is supposed to mean for the church. Does it mean churches filled primarily with white or black people should somehow forget such folks and focus on other people? Does it mean churches should start playing some imagined stereotypical Hispanic music? It is never clear. Rather, it seems like the statement is typically more a veiled threat: Get hip (somehow) or disappear.

Let’s first carefully consider the facts of the demographic transitions occurring in the United States, and then let’s think just as carefully about what they mean for ministry.

Demographic Changes

Before 1965, the United States’ overtly racialized immigration laws ensured that most immigrants would be European. But in 1965, a new immigration act was put in place, opening up immigration to the world. The result has been clear. Before 1965, more than 90 percent of all immigrants to the United States were from Europe; since 1965, more than 90 percent have been from anywhere except Europe.

The changing immigration trends have impacted the racial and ethnic composition of the United States. In 1960, 85 percent of the population was white, and 11 percent was black.

Today, the white population has declined to 64 percent. The black population has increased to 12.5 percent. The percentage of Asians has increased from 0.5 percent in 1960 to 5 percent today. People of multiple racial groups, not measured in 1960, constitute about 3 percent of the U.S. population currently. Hispanics (now 16 percent of the U.S.) have grown the most dramatically, from less than 7 million in 1960 to more than 50 million in the 2010 census, a sevenfold increase. To put that number in perspective, now only Mexico has more Hispanics than the U.S

We must also consider the average ages of these groups. The white population—due to minimal immigration and very low birth rates (less than what is needed to replace itself)—is aging rapidly. Their concerns over time are moving from raising children, finding good schools and the like to health care, retirement and social security.

The other populations are growing and will continue to grow. They have higher birth rates and are generally buttressed yearly with thousands of young immigrants. Most important to these trends are Hispanics, who accounted for 56 percent of all U.S. population growth over the past decade.

Because nearly one-quarter of Americans under 18 are Hispanic, and due to the high birth rates of Hispanics, the Hispanic population will continue to grow substantially in number and percentage (even if immigration stopped today).

Whites remain a significant proportion of the older U.S. population, and thus remain overrepresented in positions of power and influence—from U.S. senators to CEOs to seminary presidents.

But this too will change, as people of color become an increasing percentage of the adult population. The election of Barack Obama is a predecessor of changes to come. Had the percentage of whites stayed the same as in prior elections, he would not have been elected president. The nonwhite vote, which overwhelmingly was cast for Obama, had grown large enough by 2008 to win him the election.

Implications for the Church

What do these demographic facts mean for the church? First, for “white churches” they will, on average, have older and older people, and there will be less people. More and more such congregations will have to close their doors, no matter how gifted their staff. Churches catering to Hispanics will grow, and many will grow substantially. Because most Hispanics are Catholic, Catholic parishes feel and will continue to feel the most direct impacts. But more importantly, the demographic changes suggest that an increasing number of churches should move to what I and others have argued is the biblical model: congregations that are not racial niches, but instead are multiracial and multiethnic. To survive and thrive—and to be true to their calling—churches will have to be places that find a way to be for all people.

The demographic changes, however, are but a tangible reason to pursue multiracial ministry; there are (more importantly) biblical/theological reasons to change the way ministry is done. The fact that demographics are changing simply amplifies the call of God to reach and unify all people, working for justice and dignity.

Many experts believe the world economy, weighed down by trouble in Europe and diminishing growth in China, is slowing down. A new public opinion survey by the Barna Group shows deepening economic concerns among American adults and increasing downward pressure on their charitable donations. Barna has been tracking indicators of economic confidence and impact on donations at regular intervals since late 2008, when the economy began to falter.

Impact and Outlook
With each passing year, the economy continues to taint the lives of a rising share of the nation’s households. Currently, one-third of U.S. adults (34%) report they have been affected in a “major way” by the economic conditions of the last few years. This is the highest point in the four waves of tracking data, up from 22% in the early days of the economic collapse and higher than one year ago (28%).

As for their outlook, Americans believe the poor economic situation is here for the long-term. Half of adults (50%) say it will take three or more years to recover or the economy will never fully return to its pre-2009 form. This is on par with last year’s measurement, but significantly higher than it was during the first few years of the economic crisis.

Giving and Donations
The financial problems afflicting economies around the world has influenced Americans’ generosity: 41% of all U.S. adults say they have reduced giving to non-profit organizations as a result of the poor economy in the last three months. This was roughly on par with the level of charitable reduction discovered in 2011 (39%).

As for giving to churches, Americans are increasingly likely to cut back on donations to congregations and houses of worship. In the current study, one-third of Americans (34%) have dropped the amount donated to churches in the last three months. This is the highest the indicator has been since the tracking began in 2008.

Furthermore, 11% of Americans say they have completely dropped all giving to churches in recent months, also the highest it has been in the four waves of tracking conducted by Barna. In November of 2008, 4% had cut church giving entirely, but 7% had done so in April 2011.

Demographics
Baby Boomers (ages 47 to 65) are the most likely generation to struggle with the economic doldrums of recent years. Two out of five Boomers claim to be affected in a major way (40%), followed (35%) by the next-youngest generation, Busters (ages 28 to 46). While about one-quarter of Elders experienced a similar effect (27%), the same proportion of the nation’s Mosaics (ages 18 to 27) has been hit in a major way. Accordingly, Boomers were the most likely generation to drop their donations to churches and non-profits in recent months.

Other population segments who were particularly affected by the economy were households earning less than $40,000, divorced Americans, those associated with a faith other than Christianity and non-voters.

Republicans and Democrats were quite similar to one another in their responses to the economic queries. Members of both parties experience similar levels of financial pain; both demonstrate similar concerns about the future prospects of recovery; and both groups are equally likely to have reduced charitable giving to non-profit organizations. They only difference was that Democrats have cut back more so than Republicans in personal giving to churches.

In terms of religious segments, practicing Protestants were among the least likely to reduce giving to churches. However, perhaps to make up the difference, they were among the most likely to scale back their giving to other non-profit organizations. In contrast, practicing Catholics are more optimistic than Protestants about a speedy recovery; however, they are more likely to cut back donations to churches.

Putting the Findings in Context
David Kinnaman, president of Barna Group, directed the study. “Americans’ considerable charitable behavior remains intact, but each year seems to bring new economic burdens to donors,” he says. “Church donors stayed more consistent in their giving than did those donating to non-profits. However, church donors are now showing increasing fatigue. We expect the next six months to be continued cautiousness for donors of all types. For faith leaders and fundraising professionals, this means planning on modest donation levels and capital campaigns and the need for clear, compelling and consistent communications to donors.

“As for the political environment,” Kinnaman continues, “it is striking to see the similarity between the perceptions of Democrats and Republicans in terms of their concerns and challenges economically. With the upcoming election, both groups are looking for the candidates to speak authentically to the personal side of the economic situation. Even among Democrats, their vote, economically speaking, is more up for grabs than one might expect with an incumbent candidate.”

Source: http://www.barna.org/donorscause-articles/571-the-economy-continues-to-squeeze-americans-charitable-giving

Wouldn’t it be great if we could get our hands on God’s watch? Or even just peek at it? We would be able to grasp God’s timetables. We would have the answers to some of our greatest questions such as, “When will [blank] happen?”, “When should I pursue [blank]?”, and “How much longer do I have to wait for [blank]?”

However, this knowledge would not come without cost. Some of our faith could possibly become obsolete because there would be no need for trust. This lack of faith would foster self-sufficiency and would very likely squelch much of our reliance upon the Lord. Life would no longer be spontaneous and the future would no longer remain an unknown.

Now don’t get me wrong, I don’t believe God has a watch. Even if He did, keeping time would mean nothing to Him. In fact, the Bible tells us that God is outside of time; He is not bound by or constrained to minutes, days, years, etc. (John 8:57 – 58). This has huge implications upon our lives because we are shackled to the realm of time. The difference between God’s unrestrained nature and what sometimes seems like human slavery to time results in a vast disparity. 2 Peter 3:8 states, “A day is like a thousand years to the Lord, and a thousand years is like a day.” What does this even mean and what kind of implications does it have on our lives? We will never understand God’s timing this side of heaven. This is something we are obliged to live with.

Every person must face the difficulty that comes when God’s timing does not line up with our own. What is the desperate job seeker to do when the employment doesn’t come through? How does the married couple face another childless year when everyone around them has caught the pregnancy bug? How much longer does the single woman have to wait for a good man? Will science ever find a cure for the illness plaguing the young person in chronic pain?

Our response to these sometimes gnawing questions is a matter of faith: Do you really believe that God loves you; that He has given you every spiritual blessing; that even in the midst of heartache He is working for the good; that He is truly trustworthy? Often when our prayers are not answered and our faith waivers we have a choice to make. We can stay stuck in doubt or we can choose to believe what the Bible says about God. As is true of many life matters, we must forgo feelings and cling to faith.

The culture we live in is very anthropocentric, or human-centered. We err when we live as though our lives are completely about us and solely seek our own glory. We also err when we stubbornly want what we want now. Almost everything in our environment points to instant gratification: instant oatmeal, immediate trivia answers on Google, 24-hour service. We are easily irritated when we have to wait. Many of us will never forget those infuriating moments, prior to Wi-Fi and high-speed Internet, when we sat in front of our computers waiting and listening for slow AOL dial-up tone to connect to the internet.

Unlike most things in life, God is not about instant gratification. This is because He does not exist for us, but rather we exist for Him. God values prayerfully waiting on Him. He knows we do not have all the answers and that this life is often very difficult. In the midst of our tragedies and questions it is important we remember God is the giver of “every good and perfect gift” (James 1:17). With this in mind, we humbly lay everything we have and all that we are before Him. We let go our self-centeredness, our schedules and our desires. In doing so, we remove God from the box that we sometimes put Him in and allow Him the freedom to work out His will in us according to His good purpose and His timing.

God is not inactive or silent while we wait on Him. During seasons of waiting He continues to work in us. While waiting might seem a waste of time, God designed it to be productive. The exercise of waiting is shaping and sharpening. Through it God instills humility, patience and peace in our hearts and minds.

It’s been said that we do not know what the future holds, but we believe in a God who holds our future. Since God is beyond time, He fully abides in the past, present and future. In the same way that we view our surroundings at this precise moment, God just as clearly sees every day in everyone’s life throughout all of history. Although we may never understand why and when God chooses to work, we rest in the hands of a God who gave His life for us. Like the Psalmist we can faithfully proclaim to the Lord, “My times are in your hands” (Psalm 31:15).

We may not keep God time—but God keeps our time.

Brittany Volpei is the author of a children’s book called Mika: An Orphan’s Story of Faith, Hope and Love.

Geoff Surrett offers an interesting concept.

http://www.churchleaders.com/pastors/pastor-articles/161271-geoff_surratt_why_your_church_will_die_and_thats_ok.html#.T9nXcGKQP9o.email

—
This message was sent by mhoggin@gmail.com via http://addthis.com. Please note that AddThis does not verify email addresses.

Make sharing easier with the AddThis Toolbar: http://www.addthis.com/go/toolbar-em

To stop receiving any emails from AddThis please visit: http://www.addthis.com/privacy/email-opt-out?e=Abtkp2SzOfM9tW2ubYZ8qX.yIrFjtGi2fqN_tSKlY6s in your web browser.

My thanks to Doug Paul who offers fresh vision to an old story!

For quite some time, there has been a paradigm that has said a senior leader’s most significant time of ministry would be between the ages of35-45. Why? Because in a traditional church setting, the senior leader’s most important contribution is the teaching they give on Sunday. Furthermore, within this model, a speaker can usually attract people who are 10 years older and 10years younger. The ages of 35-45 would mean you’re attracting people who are newly married (pre-kids) all the way to empty nesters whose kids have just gone to college. That means you get couples from their 20′s to their late 50′s AND all of their kids.

At least that’s the thought.

But clearly, the contents of my blog have always been far more concerned with movements. I don’t have anything against traditional church models, per se, but simply to say that I see the call of the Kingdom to be far more movemental in its properties than institutional in nature.

Now I’ve had the opportunity to study sustainable, meaningful movements. I’ve also had the opportunity to work alongside someone who is leading one.

And here is my contention: You simply couldn’t lead a meaningful Kingdom movement before the age of 50. You could maybe start one and plant seeds for it. But in terms of leading one, growing one, sustaining one, I wonder if you have to be 50 and older.

Why?

Because the accrued wisdom needed to lead a Kingdom movement is simply not possible for someone who is younger. For instance, the early church didn’t really begin to take on movemental properties, at least in my opinion, until Paul is training and sending out his team beginning in Acts 19 in Ephesus. At that point in his life, Paul is probably well over 50.

At the end of the day, it doesn’t necessarily have to do with IQ, smarts, and charismatic gifting. It comes with the wisdom of trying at something for more than 30 years and all the failure that this entails. We may love the stories of wild success they seemingly find overnight at a young age, but these things aren’t reproducible.

I’m starting to find certain things incredibly reproducible and every day my ability to do them grows…even in the midst of failure. I expect that will lead to a lot of gained wisdom in the next 20 years, right?

For me, I find this liberating. No longer is the pressure thereto perform, achieve, and prove by the eve of my 31st birthday. What it does is allow me to simply listen to what God is asking me to do and to constantly reflect on what I’m learning as I respond to what he’s saying…in both success and failure. Knowing that the more experience and reflection I have, the more capacity I have to lead something truly movemental in the future.

This isn’t me trying to skirt responsibility but to process the nature of human development and growth as I’m observing things around me.

“We need to engage believers in worthwhile disciplines rather than just intellectual downloads.”

It has already been more than 10 years since we were preparing for the Y2K bug, using the new tool known as “IM,” and talking about the postmodern movement. Today, they are barely applicable to anything that we do or discuss. It simply shows that the church must be vigilant to see what is next and ready to address new issues. Let me discuss a few of the issues that are on the horizon.

Churches must find ways to navigate a post-seeker context. When I use this term, I do not mean that “seekers” no longer exist. The Spirit is still at work to enliven the hearts of people and draw them to their need for Christ. Rather, churches that once targeted seekers are finding that portions of subsequent generations do not have any religious memory at all—and it is harder to appeal to their seeking. They are the “Nones”—those who, when asked about religious affiliation, check “None.” In a post-seeker context, churches will have to create new models to help their people engage their neighbors who might not find an invitation to church appealing.

Churches in the next decade need to regain a confidence in the Gospel. The apostle Paul wrote that the message of the cross is God’s power “to us who are being saved” (1 Cor. 1:18, HCSB). Lots of people are talking about what the Gospel is, why it matters and how we are to understand it. I think that is because some are unsure of its merit—if it produced these consumer Christians, maybe we have misunderstood it. Perhaps they are right. I am convinced that churches must think through what the Gospel is and, as we seek to understand all of its implications, how we live it out. Too many have assumed that people in our culture understand the Gospel. Sadly, I fear also that too many have been inoculated with a weakened presentation of it. In the future, we need to make the Gospel more explicit.

Churches must (and I believe will) rethink discipleship. LifeWay Research is currently building off of the research released in The Shape of Faith to Come and Transformational Church to better understand personal discipleship. We are studying it in three languages and with the help of church leaders in multiple countries. Discipleship is not something that must be reinvented, but refined. In the Great Commission from Matthew 28:20, Christ assigned part of the church’s work to be: “teaching them [disciples] to observe everything I have commanded you.” Once we have a person who has crossed the threshold of faith, our work is not done. We need to engage believers in worthwhile disciplines rather than just intellectual downloads. The work of making disciples must involve a robust approach to the Gospel’s implications to the whole of life.

Churches will need to engage in new innovations—thinking through them, considering their implications, and implementing them when appropriate. These can include trends like multisite, ministry-based evangelism, and globally and locally serving those in need. OK, so some of these are not new, but they are finding new life for new generations of believers.

Perhaps 10 years from now, the issues with which we are dealing will make these issues that I mentioned a long-gone memory, like Y2K. Hopefully, however, many of the churches will have addressed these areas so that it’s the issues that are long forgotten, not those churches.

Source: http://www.outreachmagazine.com/features/4713-church-change-meeting-the-horizon.html

With Barack Obama’s recent decision to be the first American president to publicly support gay marriage, the lines in the sand are being drawn for the contest between the incumbent and Republican challenger Mitt Romney. A national survey conducted by the Barna Group indicates that despite all the media coverage the president’s new stand on gay marriage received, that issue is not likely to have a major effect on the outcome of the election among most voters.

Out of a dozen high profile issues assessed, gay marriage placed tenth in importance and only 31% of voters said this issue would affect their voting “a lot.” In terms of faith segments, while evangelical voters are more concerned about the issue than are most other voters, it is not likely to turn many evangelicals against Mr. Obama since few of them (less than one out of every five) expected to vote for him anyway.

However, a national sample of likely voters interviewed by Barna indicated that of all the different factors they will consider when choosing our next president, each candidate’s positions on important issues will be the single most important component in their candidate choice. More than four out of five likely voters (83%) said that positions on the issues are the most important factor in their decision of which candidate to support on Election Day. The issues that are of greatest significance are health care and tax policy.