Today, in honor of Christ's birth, I'd like to take a break from blogging about AG issues and simply post the second best Christmas story ever told: "Trouble at the Inn" by Dina Donohue. Merry Christmas!
~ George
-----
For years now whenever Christmas pageants are talked about in a certain little town in the Midwest, someone is sure to mention the name of Wallace Purling. Wally’s performance in one annual production of the Nativity play has slipped into the realm of legend. But the old timers who were in the audience that night never tire of recalling exactly what happened.
Wally was nine that year and in the second grade, though he should have been in the fourth. Most people in town knew that he had difficulty in keeping up. He was big and clumsy, slow in movement and mind. Still, Wally was well liked by the other children in his class, all of whom were smaller than he, though the boys had trouble hiding their irritation if the uncoordinated Wally asked to play ball with them.
Most often they’d find a way to keep him off the field, but Wally would hang around anyway—not sulking, just hoping. He was always a helpful boy, a willing and smiling one, and the natural protector, paradoxically, of the underdog. Sometimes if the older boys chased the younger ones away, it would always be Wally who’d say, “Can’t they stay? They’re no bother.”
Wally fancied the idea of being a shepherd with a flute in the Christmas pageant that year, but the play’s director, Miss Lumbard, assigned him to a more important role. After all, she reasoned, the Innkeeper did not have too many lines, and Wally’s size would make his refusal of lodging to Joseph more forceful.
And so it happened that the usual large, partisan audience gathered for the town’s Yuletide extravaganza of the staffs and creches, of beards, crowns, halos and a whole stageful of squeaky voices. No one on stage or off was more caught up in the magic of the night than Wallace Purling. They said later that he stood in the wings and watched the performance with such fascination that from time to time Miss Lumbard had to make sure he didn’t wander onstage before his cue.
Then the time came when Joseph appeared, slowly, tenderly guiding Mary to the door of the inn. Joseph knocked hard on the wooden door set into the painted backdrop. Wally the Innkeeper was there, waiting. “What do you want?” Wally said, swinging the door open with a brusque gesture.
“We seek lodging.”
“Seek it elsewhere.” Wally looked straight ahead but spoke vigorously. “The inn is filled.”
“Sir, we have asked everywhere in vain. We have traveled far and are very weary.”
“There is no room in this inn for you.” Wally looked properly stern.
“Please, good innkeeper, this is my wife, Mary. She is heavy with child and needs a place to rest.
Surely you must have some small corner for her. She is so tired.”
Now, for the first time, the Innkeeper relaxed his stiff stance and looked down at Mary. With that, there was a long pause, long enough to make the audience a bit tense with embarrassment.
“No! Begone!” the prompter whispered from the wings.
“No!” Wally repeated automatically. “Begone!”
Joseph sadly placed his arm around Mary, and Mary laid her head upon his shoulder, and the two of them started to move away. The Innkeeper did not return inside his inn, however. Wally stood there in the doorway, watching the forlorn couple. His mouth was open, his brow creased with concern, his eyes filling unmistakably with tears.
“Don’t go, Joseph,” Wally called out. “Bring Mary back.” And Wallace Purling’s face grew into a bright smile. “You can have my room.”
Some people in town thought that the pageant had been ruined. Yet there were others—many others—who considered it the most Christmas of all Christmas pageants they had ever seen.
*This article by Dina Donohue is reprinted from the Baptist Herald (Dec. 15, 1968).
Monday, December 24, 2007
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Pentecostalism + The Poor
Paul Grabill posted a link to video clip of a segment on the NBC Nightly News. The Rev. Eugene Rivers, who pastors Azuza Christian Community, shared his view of how Pentecostalism is such a force among the poor of world.
Paul describes the clip like this: You may not agree with every word, but I've rarely heard a better explanation of Pentecostalism given for non-religious folks.
To view the video click here.
What are your thoughts?
Paul describes the clip like this: You may not agree with every word, but I've rarely heard a better explanation of Pentecostalism given for non-religious folks.
To view the video click here.
What are your thoughts?
Thursday, December 13, 2007
The Squeaky Wheel...
...gets the oil.
Many of the posts on this blog dealt with the "irrelevance" and "outdatedness" of GPH curricula. Is anyone listening? According to Tom and Jan Bougher, GPH certainly is:
Many of the posts on this blog dealt with the "irrelevance" and "outdatedness" of GPH curricula. Is anyone listening? According to Tom and Jan Bougher, GPH certainly is:
I want you to know that GPH has been interested in your blog and is creating a permanent site to gather input regarding ministries and tools to better resource our churches. I have a temporary site that is being used for that now. If it is appropriate, please share this info with your bloggers - I would love to hear from them. (This info is being collected and passed on to GPH now.)Here's a link to the site. I think the Boughers want us to respond to the seven questions in this post. Feel free to answer the questions at the Bougher's site, or in the comments section right here. Either way, GPH will take note of your input.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Leading Change in the AG
Here at FutureAG, we want to promote positive change within the Assemblies of God at all levels of the movement: individual and corporate; congregational, district-level, and national; ecclesial and educational. The important issues are what and how. What constitutes positive change? And how do we implement positive change?
In this post, I’d like to prescind from the what issue and focus on the how issue. Ultimately, of course, these issues must be considered together. We cannot implement a process of positive change without having some idea of what constitutes positive change, after all. Nonetheless, for the time being, I want to focus our attention on the methodology of change.
The outline of my remarks is taken from Leading Change by John P. Kotter. Kotter writes that there are eight steps leaders must take in order to change their organizations.
First, establish a sense of urgency.
“After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God. ‘The time has come,’ he said. ‘The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!’” (Mark 1:14-15)
The reason why the AG needs to implement positive change is because the nearness of God’s kingdom compels people to make a choice for or against him. We who follow Christ are specifically commissioned to place this choice before people (Matt. 28:18-20). Unless we do so, how will they experience the righteousness, peace, and joy which is the kingdom of God (Rom. 10:14-15; cf. 14:17)?
Unfortunately, our sense of urgency about the AG does not always derive from the nearness of the kingdom. Instead, it comes from the decline of our institutions. Our ministerial cohort is graying, our adherence statistics are stagnating, and many young leaders are leaving our fellowship for association with other denominations and parachurch organizations. These institutional losses are problematic, but they are means problems, not ends problems.
If our ministerial cohort is graying, that is a problem only because younger ministers are means of reaching younger generations with the gospel of the kingdom. If our adherence statistics are stagnating, that is a problem only because we are not effectively evangelizing unbelievers and discipling new believers. If young leaders are leaving our fellowship for other associations, that is only a problem because they view those other associations as more effective change agents than our own movement.
If you want to solve these means problem, focus on the ends problem. Focus on the nearness of the kingdom and the decision it compels. That will establish a sense of urgency around which our entire movement can rally. Our evangelistic mission, in other words, must take priority over institutional maintenance. Our institutions must serve the mission.
Second, form a powerful guiding coalition.
Optimally, every congregation, each district, and the entire national headquarters will be institutionally committed to the church’s kingdom-advancing mission. Unfortunately, we all know about the problem of mission drift, of the power of institutions and bureaucracies to pursue their own interests at the expense of their founding purpose. If there is any complaint that the AG blogosphere has about AG institutions, it is that they are maintenance-oriented, rather than missional and ministry-oriented.
The long-term solution to this problem is institutional reform. Our structures—at the congregational, district, and national level—must be repurposed and reformed. We—that is, the ministers who form the governing bodies of the various district councils and General Council—must demand, and in some cases, enforce accountability on the organizational structures of our movement. That requires prayerful and informed participation in the business meetings of our movement. There is no other way to repurpose and reform our governing bodies.
Unfortunately, such repurposing and reform takes time. It took approximately thirty years to change our fellowship’s policy on credentialing divorced and remarried ministers in order to bring it in line with what the Bible teaches. Few people have the patience for that kind of change. Hopefully, the structural changes that need to take place can be done more quickly.
But as we wait for and work toward long-lasting, institutional reform, we can take action right now too. Nothing stops us from forming ad hoc ministerial networks within the existing structures. If you want to band together with other like-minded ministers for resource and support, you do not have to wait until the General Council provides de jure approval for a relational-district resolution. Form a de facto relational district right away (without, I should add, ceasing to support your district as it is current structured). Or, if you don’t like the relational district idea, follow the lead of Mark Batterson and National Community Church and start up an annual conference as a resource for like-minded ministers.
As we organize these ad hoc/de facto structures, the de jure structures will take notice of what works and get on board the band wagon. The most powerful guiding coalition is the one that is out front of the institution, modeling what positive change looks like.
Third, create a vision.
Let me speak personally, for a moment. When I think about what the AG can and should be, I think of the word army, not denomination. Part of this vision for the AG comes from the references to spiritual warfare in Ephesians 6:10-20. Our fellowship has enlisted on the Lord’s side in his struggle against principalities and powers.
(Just a side note: when Paul writes that our struggle is not against flesh and blood, he means it. Our spiritual warfare is not against gays, lesbians, liberals, Muslims, abortionists, or whatever. Our spiritual warfare is against the devil on their behalf. They are the contested territory we are fighting over. They are not the enemy we are fighting against. I wish we ministers who preach about this passage would make that point of distinction more clearly.)
The main reason I see the AG as an army is because an army has a unified purpose and a structure organized around that purpose. The purpose of an army is to fight. It is organized to accomplish that purpose. The soldier in the field may do the hand-to-hand combat, but a supply chain keeps him fed and armed, a competent officer corps trains him and strategically deploys him, etc.
In my vision for the AG, our movement has a singularity of purpose (proclaiming the kingdom) and an organization to meet that purpose. The local congregation may be the frontline soldiers in that task of proclamation, but behind them stand district officials who resource and supply them, college professors who teach and coach them, national leaders who unite them, etc.
Fourth, communicate that vision.
Here, I have two questions. (1) Do our leaders consistently communicate to us? The answer, unfortunately, is mixed. Some district leaders proactively communicate with the ministers under the care. Not only do they send them monthly newsletters, but they pick up the phone and call them. And they don’t just call when there’s a crisis, they call simply to build the relationship. But this is not true in every district. Would that it were! (And by the way, would that we pastors would communicate as proactively with our congregations as we wish our district leaders communicated with us!)
(2) What do our leaders communicate? Does it edify and encourage us? Does it train us for the task at hand? Unfortunately, not always. Again, the situation seems to depend on which district you’re in. Sometimes, it seems the only communications we receive from our leaders announces policy changes with which we disagree or asks for more money.
The one thing we ask of our leaders is that before they demand something of us, they build a relationship with us.
Fifth, empower others to act on the vision.
One of the biggest problems facing the AG in accomplishing its kingdom-proclaiming mission is the problem of old wineskins. The culture which gave birth to the AG in 1914 is very different from the culture in which we now live. Indeed, the culture in which my father was raised is very different from the culture in which I was raised. And I minister to young people who were raised in a culture that is totally alien to me. If we are going to reach people with the message of the kingdom, we must be very flexible about methodology. And that means that our leaders, who are typically older and used to a different culture than we younger ministers, must allow us younger ministers to experiment with methodologies that work in our cultural context. Not allow; that’s the wrong word. They must proactively empower. What worked in 1914 is not what worked in 1964 and is not what will work in 2014.
Empowering others to act, to use means and methodologies which are alien to the culture in which one was raised, requires great trust. We younger ministers who clamor for freedom to experiment must earn that trust by showing our fidelity to the gospel of the kingdom. Our leaders, who are older, must trust us to proclaim the kingdom in a language and style that is not their own. This is the essence of empowerment and cooperation.
And aren’t we a voluntary, cooperative fellowship? To cooperate with someone means to work with them toward the accomplishment of a task. Whatever our age, whatever the culture in which we came to Christ, whatever the means and methodologies we use, aren’t we supposed to cooperate with one another? Cooperation doesn’t mean merely that we cooperate (co-work) with our district leaders. It must also mean that they cooperate (co-work) with us. If they do not cooperate with us, then we are working for them, not with them. Forms of leadership that demand obedience and respect without the balance of empowerment and trust betray the essence of voluntary cooperation.
Sixth, plan for and create short-term wins.
We’ve already had a few: (1) this blog, (2) the Bucca di Bepo lunch, (3) meeting with General Superintendent Wood at Springfield, (4) having AG leaders respond to these posts, (5) the expansion of the Executive Presbytery to be representative of younger ministers and women, and (6) the change of tone coming from Springfield, just to name five. We want to see more positive change, but we should celebrate the changes that have already been made.
Seventh, consolidate improvements and keep the momentum for change moving.
This, I think, is where many of us are stuck. We’ve started the ball rolling, but how do we keep it rolling. I would do several things. (1) Keep the tone positive. (2) Get more involved, not less involved, in the current organizational structures. (3) Build local networks and coalitions with like-minded ministers in your section, district, and region. (4) Go to all denominational business meetings. (5) Call your district superintendent and let him know you’re praying for him. (6) Write a few sample resolutions and post them on a blog for our consideration.
Eight, institutionalize the new approaches.
Unfortunately, we haven’t reached the level of institutionalized change yet (other than expanding the EP). What we can institutionalize is transparency and tone. Everyone who contributes to this blog, by way of posts or comments, is being transparent with his/her readers. What we need in our fellowship is more openness, more honesty, more authenticity, not less. But alongside with this transparency is the need for graciousness in tone. No one wants to listen to a chronic grumbler or complainer. But most people will listen to a constructive critic who has the other person’s best interests in mind. That is the kind of people we should be. Positive change requires positive change agents. The kingdom of God is righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit. As we work to effect positive change in our fellowship, are our thoughts, feelings, words and actions characterized by righteousness, joy, and peace? If we can change the transparency and tone of the debate about how to change the AG, we will in fact change the AG, and in changing it, help proclaim the kingdom to our generation.
So, my friends, suaviter in modo, fortiter in re. That's Latin for "Sweetly in method, strongly in the matter at hand." Let's be strong for change in the AG, but let's do it with the sweet spirit which only the Spirit can provide.
In this post, I’d like to prescind from the what issue and focus on the how issue. Ultimately, of course, these issues must be considered together. We cannot implement a process of positive change without having some idea of what constitutes positive change, after all. Nonetheless, for the time being, I want to focus our attention on the methodology of change.
The outline of my remarks is taken from Leading Change by John P. Kotter. Kotter writes that there are eight steps leaders must take in order to change their organizations.
First, establish a sense of urgency.
“After John was put in prison, Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news of God. ‘The time has come,’ he said. ‘The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!’” (Mark 1:14-15)
The reason why the AG needs to implement positive change is because the nearness of God’s kingdom compels people to make a choice for or against him. We who follow Christ are specifically commissioned to place this choice before people (Matt. 28:18-20). Unless we do so, how will they experience the righteousness, peace, and joy which is the kingdom of God (Rom. 10:14-15; cf. 14:17)?
Unfortunately, our sense of urgency about the AG does not always derive from the nearness of the kingdom. Instead, it comes from the decline of our institutions. Our ministerial cohort is graying, our adherence statistics are stagnating, and many young leaders are leaving our fellowship for association with other denominations and parachurch organizations. These institutional losses are problematic, but they are means problems, not ends problems.
If our ministerial cohort is graying, that is a problem only because younger ministers are means of reaching younger generations with the gospel of the kingdom. If our adherence statistics are stagnating, that is a problem only because we are not effectively evangelizing unbelievers and discipling new believers. If young leaders are leaving our fellowship for other associations, that is only a problem because they view those other associations as more effective change agents than our own movement.
If you want to solve these means problem, focus on the ends problem. Focus on the nearness of the kingdom and the decision it compels. That will establish a sense of urgency around which our entire movement can rally. Our evangelistic mission, in other words, must take priority over institutional maintenance. Our institutions must serve the mission.
Second, form a powerful guiding coalition.
Optimally, every congregation, each district, and the entire national headquarters will be institutionally committed to the church’s kingdom-advancing mission. Unfortunately, we all know about the problem of mission drift, of the power of institutions and bureaucracies to pursue their own interests at the expense of their founding purpose. If there is any complaint that the AG blogosphere has about AG institutions, it is that they are maintenance-oriented, rather than missional and ministry-oriented.
The long-term solution to this problem is institutional reform. Our structures—at the congregational, district, and national level—must be repurposed and reformed. We—that is, the ministers who form the governing bodies of the various district councils and General Council—must demand, and in some cases, enforce accountability on the organizational structures of our movement. That requires prayerful and informed participation in the business meetings of our movement. There is no other way to repurpose and reform our governing bodies.
Unfortunately, such repurposing and reform takes time. It took approximately thirty years to change our fellowship’s policy on credentialing divorced and remarried ministers in order to bring it in line with what the Bible teaches. Few people have the patience for that kind of change. Hopefully, the structural changes that need to take place can be done more quickly.
But as we wait for and work toward long-lasting, institutional reform, we can take action right now too. Nothing stops us from forming ad hoc ministerial networks within the existing structures. If you want to band together with other like-minded ministers for resource and support, you do not have to wait until the General Council provides de jure approval for a relational-district resolution. Form a de facto relational district right away (without, I should add, ceasing to support your district as it is current structured). Or, if you don’t like the relational district idea, follow the lead of Mark Batterson and National Community Church and start up an annual conference as a resource for like-minded ministers.
As we organize these ad hoc/de facto structures, the de jure structures will take notice of what works and get on board the band wagon. The most powerful guiding coalition is the one that is out front of the institution, modeling what positive change looks like.
Third, create a vision.
Let me speak personally, for a moment. When I think about what the AG can and should be, I think of the word army, not denomination. Part of this vision for the AG comes from the references to spiritual warfare in Ephesians 6:10-20. Our fellowship has enlisted on the Lord’s side in his struggle against principalities and powers.
(Just a side note: when Paul writes that our struggle is not against flesh and blood, he means it. Our spiritual warfare is not against gays, lesbians, liberals, Muslims, abortionists, or whatever. Our spiritual warfare is against the devil on their behalf. They are the contested territory we are fighting over. They are not the enemy we are fighting against. I wish we ministers who preach about this passage would make that point of distinction more clearly.)
The main reason I see the AG as an army is because an army has a unified purpose and a structure organized around that purpose. The purpose of an army is to fight. It is organized to accomplish that purpose. The soldier in the field may do the hand-to-hand combat, but a supply chain keeps him fed and armed, a competent officer corps trains him and strategically deploys him, etc.
In my vision for the AG, our movement has a singularity of purpose (proclaiming the kingdom) and an organization to meet that purpose. The local congregation may be the frontline soldiers in that task of proclamation, but behind them stand district officials who resource and supply them, college professors who teach and coach them, national leaders who unite them, etc.
Fourth, communicate that vision.
Here, I have two questions. (1) Do our leaders consistently communicate to us? The answer, unfortunately, is mixed. Some district leaders proactively communicate with the ministers under the care. Not only do they send them monthly newsletters, but they pick up the phone and call them. And they don’t just call when there’s a crisis, they call simply to build the relationship. But this is not true in every district. Would that it were! (And by the way, would that we pastors would communicate as proactively with our congregations as we wish our district leaders communicated with us!)
(2) What do our leaders communicate? Does it edify and encourage us? Does it train us for the task at hand? Unfortunately, not always. Again, the situation seems to depend on which district you’re in. Sometimes, it seems the only communications we receive from our leaders announces policy changes with which we disagree or asks for more money.
The one thing we ask of our leaders is that before they demand something of us, they build a relationship with us.
Fifth, empower others to act on the vision.
One of the biggest problems facing the AG in accomplishing its kingdom-proclaiming mission is the problem of old wineskins. The culture which gave birth to the AG in 1914 is very different from the culture in which we now live. Indeed, the culture in which my father was raised is very different from the culture in which I was raised. And I minister to young people who were raised in a culture that is totally alien to me. If we are going to reach people with the message of the kingdom, we must be very flexible about methodology. And that means that our leaders, who are typically older and used to a different culture than we younger ministers, must allow us younger ministers to experiment with methodologies that work in our cultural context. Not allow; that’s the wrong word. They must proactively empower. What worked in 1914 is not what worked in 1964 and is not what will work in 2014.
Empowering others to act, to use means and methodologies which are alien to the culture in which one was raised, requires great trust. We younger ministers who clamor for freedom to experiment must earn that trust by showing our fidelity to the gospel of the kingdom. Our leaders, who are older, must trust us to proclaim the kingdom in a language and style that is not their own. This is the essence of empowerment and cooperation.
And aren’t we a voluntary, cooperative fellowship? To cooperate with someone means to work with them toward the accomplishment of a task. Whatever our age, whatever the culture in which we came to Christ, whatever the means and methodologies we use, aren’t we supposed to cooperate with one another? Cooperation doesn’t mean merely that we cooperate (co-work) with our district leaders. It must also mean that they cooperate (co-work) with us. If they do not cooperate with us, then we are working for them, not with them. Forms of leadership that demand obedience and respect without the balance of empowerment and trust betray the essence of voluntary cooperation.
Sixth, plan for and create short-term wins.
We’ve already had a few: (1) this blog, (2) the Bucca di Bepo lunch, (3) meeting with General Superintendent Wood at Springfield, (4) having AG leaders respond to these posts, (5) the expansion of the Executive Presbytery to be representative of younger ministers and women, and (6) the change of tone coming from Springfield, just to name five. We want to see more positive change, but we should celebrate the changes that have already been made.
Seventh, consolidate improvements and keep the momentum for change moving.
This, I think, is where many of us are stuck. We’ve started the ball rolling, but how do we keep it rolling. I would do several things. (1) Keep the tone positive. (2) Get more involved, not less involved, in the current organizational structures. (3) Build local networks and coalitions with like-minded ministers in your section, district, and region. (4) Go to all denominational business meetings. (5) Call your district superintendent and let him know you’re praying for him. (6) Write a few sample resolutions and post them on a blog for our consideration.
Eight, institutionalize the new approaches.
Unfortunately, we haven’t reached the level of institutionalized change yet (other than expanding the EP). What we can institutionalize is transparency and tone. Everyone who contributes to this blog, by way of posts or comments, is being transparent with his/her readers. What we need in our fellowship is more openness, more honesty, more authenticity, not less. But alongside with this transparency is the need for graciousness in tone. No one wants to listen to a chronic grumbler or complainer. But most people will listen to a constructive critic who has the other person’s best interests in mind. That is the kind of people we should be. Positive change requires positive change agents. The kingdom of God is righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit. As we work to effect positive change in our fellowship, are our thoughts, feelings, words and actions characterized by righteousness, joy, and peace? If we can change the transparency and tone of the debate about how to change the AG, we will in fact change the AG, and in changing it, help proclaim the kingdom to our generation.
So, my friends, suaviter in modo, fortiter in re. That's Latin for "Sweetly in method, strongly in the matter at hand." Let's be strong for change in the AG, but let's do it with the sweet spirit which only the Spirit can provide.
unChristian
David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons, unChristian: What A New Generation Really Thinks about Christianity and Why It Matters (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2007).
How do people outside the church view those inside it? If you’re talking about Americans between the ages of 16 and 29, the answer is, “Not favorably.” Americans in this age range view Christians as hypocritical, too focused on conversion, antihomosexual, sheltered, too political, and judgmental. Reflecting on these results, David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons conclude, “Christianity has an image problem.”
Kinnaman is president of the Barna Group, a research firm that studies trends in American religion. Lyons is founder of Fermi Project, a network of emerging evangelical leaders who are trying to positively impact American culture. Fermi commissioned the Barna Group to study perceptions of Christians among Americans in the older Mosaic (born 1984-2002) and younger Buster (born 1965-1983) age cohorts. The resulting book book, unChristian, summarizes the conclusions of that study and provides suggestions for how Christians can overcome their image problem.
According to Kinnaman and Lyons, the key to changing young adults’ perceptions of Christianity is learning “to respond to people in the way Jesus did.” This does not entail giving up or watering down key convictions about Christian faith and practice. Just because young adults view Christianity as antihomosexual, for example, does not mean that Christians should stop teaching that homosexual acts are sinful or that monogamous heterosexual marriage is God’s will.
What responding to people as Jesus did means is, first of all, having the right perspective on their criticism. “[W]e should consider whether our response to cynics and opponents is motivated to defend God’s fame or our own image.” Second, it involves connecting with people. “[T]he negative image of Christians can be overcome, and this almost always happens in the context of meaningful, trusting relationships.” Third, a Christlike response requires creativity. “We cannot ignore the importance of breaking through the ‘been there, learned that’ perspective young people have about Christianity.” And fourth, we must serve people. Young American adults view the church as irrelevant and uncaring. To respond as Jesus would, “we must cultivate deep concern and sensitivity to outsiders.”
Of course, we ought to do these things because they’re right things to do, not simply because they’ll help improve our image among young adults. And doing these things does not guarantee that young people will become Christians. What it will do is change the perception about who Christians are, what webelieve, and how welive. In a culture for which perception often is reality, changing the way the church is perceived goes a long way to solving humanity’s basic problem: our separation from God, and our need for salvation.
How do people outside the church view those inside it? If you’re talking about Americans between the ages of 16 and 29, the answer is, “Not favorably.” Americans in this age range view Christians as hypocritical, too focused on conversion, antihomosexual, sheltered, too political, and judgmental. Reflecting on these results, David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons conclude, “Christianity has an image problem.”
Kinnaman is president of the Barna Group, a research firm that studies trends in American religion. Lyons is founder of Fermi Project, a network of emerging evangelical leaders who are trying to positively impact American culture. Fermi commissioned the Barna Group to study perceptions of Christians among Americans in the older Mosaic (born 1984-2002) and younger Buster (born 1965-1983) age cohorts. The resulting book book, unChristian, summarizes the conclusions of that study and provides suggestions for how Christians can overcome their image problem.
According to Kinnaman and Lyons, the key to changing young adults’ perceptions of Christianity is learning “to respond to people in the way Jesus did.” This does not entail giving up or watering down key convictions about Christian faith and practice. Just because young adults view Christianity as antihomosexual, for example, does not mean that Christians should stop teaching that homosexual acts are sinful or that monogamous heterosexual marriage is God’s will.
What responding to people as Jesus did means is, first of all, having the right perspective on their criticism. “[W]e should consider whether our response to cynics and opponents is motivated to defend God’s fame or our own image.” Second, it involves connecting with people. “[T]he negative image of Christians can be overcome, and this almost always happens in the context of meaningful, trusting relationships.” Third, a Christlike response requires creativity. “We cannot ignore the importance of breaking through the ‘been there, learned that’ perspective young people have about Christianity.” And fourth, we must serve people. Young American adults view the church as irrelevant and uncaring. To respond as Jesus would, “we must cultivate deep concern and sensitivity to outsiders.”
Of course, we ought to do these things because they’re right things to do, not simply because they’ll help improve our image among young adults. And doing these things does not guarantee that young people will become Christians. What it will do is change the perception about who Christians are, what webelieve, and how welive. In a culture for which perception often is reality, changing the way the church is perceived goes a long way to solving humanity’s basic problem: our separation from God, and our need for salvation.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Initiating or Reacting?
When I grow up, I want to be like Dr. Beth Grant!
Last Friday, I solicited your answers to three questions about the District Councils ("Three Questions about Your District"). Dr. Grant responded tonight with a typically thoughtful, irenic, and spiritually challenging reply. Below, I've re-posted what she originally wrote as a comment on that thread. Her remarks deserve wide circulation and careful reflection by all of us, especially those of us (and I include myself here) who tend toward cynicism about some aspects of our movement.
Thank you Dr. Grant!
I apologize, but since my husband and I minister in about 15-20 districts a year as missionaries and have many friends who are district leaders, my thoughts are focused more broadly rather than specifically on our home district where we do not live.
What works?
Most district leaders we know want change and would probably be thrilled for some innovative positive restructuring. Some district leaders are working hard to articulate fresh vision, provide resources and initiate more fluid minimal organizational structures to facilitate the accomplishment of God’s mission in their sphere of influence. They are great role models.
What doesn’t work?
We seem to be more prone to react than initiate, more comfortable maintaining the status quo than daring to make needed changes.
How can we fix it?
Change will require a shift in how we think, live and make decisions, both corporately and individually:
1. Stewardship vs.ownership
. . . “my” district, “my” church, “my” department, even “my” ministry. Private ownership is something we are enculturated into from childhood in our society, not a matter of semantics. We probably need a deliverance service to deal with this epidemic!
Stewardship in leadership implies recognizing accountability, responsibility, and investing wisely of all resources on behalf of the One we serve to whom it all belongs. Entitlement and territorialism are incongruous with biblical stewardship.
2. A pilgrim lifestyle
Are we willing to return to an Abrahamic posture of being ready to move as God speaks to us, whatever our calling/role? There was an old song I remember hearing as a child, “This world is not my home, I’m just a-passin’ through . . . “ I don’t miss the song, but the posture is biblical!
Some of David’s and my greatest heroes and mentors in missions have been men and women who were always listening for God’s voice and always ready to take new courageous steps of faith in their 60’s and 70’s! Some of them had and are having their most effective exciting and visionary ministry after 60 years of age.
3. Downsizing, prioritizing the missional from all that is not missional.
What can we unload that is not essential to leading people to Jesus, mentoring them as disciples and developing effective ministers for the future?
Last year, I sensed that God was going to do some unexpected unprecedented things in our lives and ministries. I was embarrassed and convicted to realize that if He did, there was actually no time in my schedule or room on my plate for it!
Can we discern the non-essentials we’ve accumulated as a part of all we are doing in order to focus on the most essential missional things God wants to do?
This process would lead us to re-align our resources with our stated (biblical) priorities: more time and financial resources given to lead people to Jesus (evangelism on all fronts), more intentionality on the development of a strategy and time invested to disciple people in following Jesus (“spiritual parenting”, without which bringing people to the “new birth” is irresponsible), and a more intentional investment in ministerial training.
4. Ministerial lifestyles of receiving and extending grace
The level of unhealed hurt that has surfaced here over the months has been saddening and is something with which all of us can identify.
Some days, forgiving is a full-time job, especially as leaders and sadly among colleagues. But if we don’t? Accumulated hurts contaminate and color everything we do and say –especially in times of stress. God help us to release offenses, accept healing and extend forgiveness – even to those who may never ask. Then we are free – free to receive His forgiveness and free to preach forgiveness to others with integrity.
We seem to have a window of opportunity under our national leadership for broad-based constructive dialogue and healthy change. But to go beyond discussion will require bold courageous collaborative steps in which all of us must be willing to change – district leaders, national leaders and individual ministers alike.
Beth Grant
Last Friday, I solicited your answers to three questions about the District Councils ("Three Questions about Your District"). Dr. Grant responded tonight with a typically thoughtful, irenic, and spiritually challenging reply. Below, I've re-posted what she originally wrote as a comment on that thread. Her remarks deserve wide circulation and careful reflection by all of us, especially those of us (and I include myself here) who tend toward cynicism about some aspects of our movement.
Thank you Dr. Grant!
----------
I apologize, but since my husband and I minister in about 15-20 districts a year as missionaries and have many friends who are district leaders, my thoughts are focused more broadly rather than specifically on our home district where we do not live.
What works?
Most district leaders we know want change and would probably be thrilled for some innovative positive restructuring. Some district leaders are working hard to articulate fresh vision, provide resources and initiate more fluid minimal organizational structures to facilitate the accomplishment of God’s mission in their sphere of influence. They are great role models.
What doesn’t work?
We seem to be more prone to react than initiate, more comfortable maintaining the status quo than daring to make needed changes.
How can we fix it?
Change will require a shift in how we think, live and make decisions, both corporately and individually:
1. Stewardship vs.ownership
. . . “my” district, “my” church, “my” department, even “my” ministry. Private ownership is something we are enculturated into from childhood in our society, not a matter of semantics. We probably need a deliverance service to deal with this epidemic!
Stewardship in leadership implies recognizing accountability, responsibility, and investing wisely of all resources on behalf of the One we serve to whom it all belongs. Entitlement and territorialism are incongruous with biblical stewardship.
2. A pilgrim lifestyle
Are we willing to return to an Abrahamic posture of being ready to move as God speaks to us, whatever our calling/role? There was an old song I remember hearing as a child, “This world is not my home, I’m just a-passin’ through . . . “ I don’t miss the song, but the posture is biblical!
Some of David’s and my greatest heroes and mentors in missions have been men and women who were always listening for God’s voice and always ready to take new courageous steps of faith in their 60’s and 70’s! Some of them had and are having their most effective exciting and visionary ministry after 60 years of age.
3. Downsizing, prioritizing the missional from all that is not missional.
What can we unload that is not essential to leading people to Jesus, mentoring them as disciples and developing effective ministers for the future?
Last year, I sensed that God was going to do some unexpected unprecedented things in our lives and ministries. I was embarrassed and convicted to realize that if He did, there was actually no time in my schedule or room on my plate for it!
Can we discern the non-essentials we’ve accumulated as a part of all we are doing in order to focus on the most essential missional things God wants to do?
This process would lead us to re-align our resources with our stated (biblical) priorities: more time and financial resources given to lead people to Jesus (evangelism on all fronts), more intentionality on the development of a strategy and time invested to disciple people in following Jesus (“spiritual parenting”, without which bringing people to the “new birth” is irresponsible), and a more intentional investment in ministerial training.
4. Ministerial lifestyles of receiving and extending grace
The level of unhealed hurt that has surfaced here over the months has been saddening and is something with which all of us can identify.
Some days, forgiving is a full-time job, especially as leaders and sadly among colleagues. But if we don’t? Accumulated hurts contaminate and color everything we do and say –especially in times of stress. God help us to release offenses, accept healing and extend forgiveness – even to those who may never ask. Then we are free – free to receive His forgiveness and free to preach forgiveness to others with integrity.
We seem to have a window of opportunity under our national leadership for broad-based constructive dialogue and healthy change. But to go beyond discussion will require bold courageous collaborative steps in which all of us must be willing to change – district leaders, national leaders and individual ministers alike.
Beth Grant
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
