I plan for this to be the last post about church growth as it relates to structures. I started the series because I have a deep seated belief that the local church is ultimately a force for good in this world and that the pastor at the helm needs to have a fuller understanding of his position within the church.

Just as God has ordained some to be teachers, apostles, prophets and healers, there is a variety within each of these groups that needs to be recognized. The giftings of one pastor may be to a small congregation where as another imbued by with gifting to lead a large church.

I still believe that the local church is the ultimate force for good but the curtain need to be pulled open and the church needs to see the little man called Christendom who has been calling our shots for far too long.

Christendom is a concept borne out of a close connection of church and state, not necessarily a theocracy but a symbiotic relationship where one feeds the other to their own ends. And Christendom thinking is destroying the church.

We live for the most part in a post-modern, post-Christian, post-denominational world. A world that has lost automatic respect for the church and it's teaching because of how we have represented Christ and His teachings. Witness what clerical abuse of children, institutional thinking, denominationalism, political manipulation by refusing communion to those who expouse Heterodoxy in their thinking. These things and Christians who exhibit little to no Christ-likeness has stolen away the good will of the church universal and must be examined and where appropriate repented of and where appropriate rejected or redeemed.

Christendom has ended but we are still behaving as if it's alive and well.

The net effect over the entire Christendom epoch was that Christianity moved from being a revolutionary, social and spiritual movement to being a static religious institution with its attendant structures, priesthood, and sacraments. Taken as a sociological reality, Christendom has been in decline for 250 years so much so, that contemporary Western culture has been called by many historians (secular and Christian) the "post-Christendom" culture.
    -Michael Frost, Exiles, p.4

    
I'll go out on a very short limb and say this, the decline of the (at least Western) church is because of a failure to see it's place in the world clearly.

So how do we begin to turn this around? It's not what you might think.

Step 1: Christian unity!
Step 2: See step 1.

Our Savior Jesus once said "A house divided against itself can not stand" and later went on to say "My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me." (John 17:20-23)

If we resolve to be Christians, one body, one faith, one baptism, one together and open to the transformation of our lives by the Holy Spirit of God I believe that church form and structure will flow naturally into our current contexts. In some places it will look the same as before and in other places radically different but we have a God big enough to handle it.

This is the call of an Emerging Pastor and their leadership of Gods church.

Following on from The church with no programs. I concluded with the following challenge:

    What would your church look like if you stopped every single program? What would rise up and fill their space? Some of the old which was valuable may well reappear but I would bet next weeks collection it would emerge totally different, and something that honours God where you are, with what you have and blesses the community around you.

Over a period of many years I have read at least 50 books on church leadership, management and growth. They all had great ideas, some could even be used in a context apart from the one they originated. (aside: don't dig into that point, I have a big problem with church leadership books and the people who read them and try to make them work in absurdly different circumstances.)

However none of it really hit home until somebody asked be the question: "If you church disappeared tomorrow, would anyone notice?"

Well, would anyone miss yours? Most of the congregation would probably be happy with a free Sunday. Now that's not a joke, I was talking to the leader of a nearby church this morning and he told me how great it was since they closed their night service. He get's to spend a lot more time with friends and family. Long lunches with friends turn into long evenings. He doesn't want to start going back to the night services.

That single question used to drive how I approached ministry (I think I blogged about it a while ago but I can't remember) until the question was redefined for me by Rob Bell.

This is not a direct quote but it's  pretty close. Rob asked: "If your church was forced to close down tomorrow, who would protest?"

I'll give you a pass on the church members (their a given except for my friend above). This question puts a beautiful spin on the original, it opens us up to consider our wider community and their needs. Would our neighbors notice that the church had been closed? Will our community miss our impact as far as social justice and helping the poor is concerned?

What are we doing in our church that will be protested if we are forced to move on?

I recently finished a short book called "Jesus Wants to Save Christians: A Manifesto for the Church in Exile" by Rob Bell.

I have to say, it left me both hungry and satisfied. For over a year I have had the thought that the church today is something akin to the nation of Israel in exile. In a macro way it has swapped natural for unnatural and become not just of the world but worldly in everything it does.

Now that's a big call and I guess what I'm saying is that the church (not specifically Christians) has become something that it was not supposed to be. It has swapped it's dynamicism of the past for something tried and true and in most churches I have been associated with, the majority of the energy goes into maintenance. maintenance of the buildings, the mortgage, the programs, the rosters. All of the things that should be peripheral have become central which pushes the important things from our grasp.

Such thoughts will not be new to you if you have been reading this blog over the past year, but reading the book helped bring some of my thoughts into focus and I'll be writing about these over the coming months.

Today I am going to start at the outcome. What does a church in exile look like? The correct answer is whatever shape God ordains for where and when you are. Whatever shape, structure and resources make sense in your context but not simply shape, structure and resources maintained from the past.

Although it was quite a rough ride to be expelled from their homeland and into captivity (more than once), exile for the Jewish nation help to sharpen their focus as well as build their reliance on God. I wonder what would happen to most churches I know of if they were physically exiled from where they stood, not just exiled from the mainline of society? How would that sharpen their focus, would it?

When I heard the call of God to move from the church I was serving and to go to another church I considered a nearby congregation whose pastor had also just moved on. This was (and still remains) a troubled church. Most of their 50 strong congregation is over 70, there is one young family, but what they do have is their building, and they work hard to keep it.

I had a very informal chat with this church and put it to them that if I was to be called to serve there, the first thing I would do would be to shut down every single program they have and keep them shut down for at least 3 years. Its a radical idea, but my feeling at the time for them was that they needed to rediscover who they were at a church now and not perpetuation who they were as a church 30 years ago. (Who knows, they might even sell the building and give the money to the poor).

What would your church look like if you stopped every single program? What would rise up and fill their space? Some of the old which was valuable may well reappear but I would bet next weeks collection it would emerge totally different, and something that honours God where you are, with what you have and blesses the community around you.

A great deal of my time recently has been given over to the contemplation of church as an activity. In the last month on three seperate occasions, people (all couples but I don't think that's causal) have told me that they have given up going to church because to varying degrees they do not see a point in it.

These are all people who love God wholeheartedly but have been disenfranchised in congregations that see their value as their abilities and not as fellow children of God.

It gives me reason to pause when I hear something like this and it should cause you to pause as well.

Why does a congregation exist? That seems to be the root of all of this. I know that many people are not fans of the institutional church and are looking to the emerging and missional movements to find something new and exciting, I count myself among them, but surely the institutional church as we know it is not evil.

If it were evil (as defined by actively opposing peoples relationship with God) then I would be the first with the flamethrower and pitch fork calling for them to be closed down. I do not believe the institutional church to be inherently evil but they have in many cases become misguided.

This sounds a little contradictory but I'm both a supporter and detractor of the institutional church. Actually, I just don't like the institutional part. Let me unpack that a little with some more definitions.

We call pretty much any church with 4 walls and people institutional. I believe that is unfair. An institutional church in my mind is one that has become institutionalized. One that exists purely to perpetuate it's existence.

IBM, one of the worlds biggest computer companies and largest employers had this problem not that long ago. They were BIG BLUE, everyone came to them to have their problems fixed. After a while they just seemed to stagnate. Their products were no longer innovative, they did not take the industry lead and as a consequence they were overtaken by smaller rivals. IBM it seems existed just to be IBM, they were no longer a business to help people.

Sound familiar? Institutionalized churches are like IBM, they were once vibrant communities of faith and healing but somewhere along the line they looked inwards and started to plan for maintenance and not growth.

IBM seems to be back on a growth trajectory but it took many years, a lot of pain and introspection and real LEADERSHIP to turn things around.

The same is needed for the church.

One of my favorite pieces of Scripture is "Without a vision, the people perish". It is our responsibility as leaders of God's church to be focused on his mission and share with our congregation how we are going to accomplish that in our context. That is vision. All else is secondary to the Fathers mission. The building, lobbying government, the music everything is secondary to the mission. They are often important, but I will say it one more time. They are secondary to the mission.

Here are some hard questions for you church leader:

 * What is your churches number one focus?
 * Do you have a vision statement?
 * Does it fulfill the great commission?
 * Are you able to measure if it's working?
 * Are you making an idol out of anything secondary?

 

I've just published another article / deep thought which takes a look at missional communities in history and tries to draw out of their experience something that we can take forward for today's missional/emerging church.

Comparion of Missional movements in history attempts to deconstruct the Piest movement of early Protestantism as well as the monastic movement from it's 3rd century roots and compares their distinctive characteristics, features, strengths and weaknesses in their historical contexts. By looking at how each was caused, shaped and affected we can learn more about missional living and leadership today.

I hope you learn something from reading it because I did writing it. There is truly nothing new under the sun as far as "doing church" goes and we have a lot to learn about community and involvement in the lives of others from these movements in the past.

This semester at college I'm studying an advanced preaching subject, it's all about preaching to the post-modern world and understanding what that means as far as traditional preaching styles and their assumptions go.

One thing I have heard in church meetings has been complaints that the people aren't coming in because we're not preaching 'em like we used to. To that they mean either some real fire and brimstone or some Billy Graham style evangelical message. I've started to see the same thinking begin to creep into my church because one of the services is faltering.

It seems to me that when a church finds itself in a state of decline it does what every other organization does, tries to recapture the past. It remembers the good old days when people were stacked to the rafters and the tithes were bountiful. They look back and say, well we used to sing hymns and preach the Word of God (usually a complaint about the style of preaching not the content) and the people flocked in.

Thinking like this is both right and wrong! It's right thinking because it recognizes that people have changed, they have moved address and we need to change along with them. It's wrong thinking to then say, well we'll just move back into the past and people will follow.

An emerging pastor has the responsibility to track down their post-modern sheep and understand their thinking to reach them in a way that both honours God and listens to people.

Interested in that kind of job?

Up till now I've been very careful not to speak to much about the emerging / emergent church. It is a deliberate act because while the site has the word emerging in the title it is not about either of these movements, it is about my ministry journey.

I have read quite a lot about the emerging church and love books by Brian McLaren and Mark Driscol. I certainly don't agree with everything they say but there is an important dialogue going on about what is church and it's a dialogue I want to be involved in.

Part of the emerging church movement is to take the post modern deconstructionist approach to doctrine and exegete it in light of how it’s historical context.

Quite apart from my theological studies I was challenged to read through Luther’s 95 theses and I was surprised to discover that this ye olde reformer was really a deconstructionist himself. The reforming and emerging concepts are close enough to call the same. It is the idea of growing closer to God through understanding and living in a right relationship with Him.

Being a devoted Protestant I've never actually read through all of Luthers 95 theses' and I'm betting that you haven't either, so I’m going to post a few every week until we get through them and allow you to offer commentary along with me.

I may paraphrase some of the theses' into more modern terminology but you can read something fairly authentic over at spurgen. Unless you can read German, your not going to get the original.