Musings: Notes From My Daybook

Recently I asked a half-dozen or so colleagues in ministry a rather quickly and inadequately phrased question about what the evangelistic effort of a local church should look like. In spite of my poorly phrased query, these friends have responded wonderfully and I am deeply grateful.

Indeed, as Drew Gaylor and David Mangum noted the personal angst and struggle with thinking missionally, I too sense a loss, especially recently locating to a new city and context. What I have found, as David mentions, is that nearly every week someone shows up at our worship services. For now, those persons are my primary contact with people that are open to what God is up to.

Likewise, I would certainly concur that mission is not a program or a "ministry" that the church has. In fact, I think we have already lost the battle if we think that we should have a personal evangelism ministry or an outreach ministry, like we have a women's ministry or a finance ministry. Rather, I believe that mission is the foundational reason for existence for a local congregation. Bonhoeffer's phrase, "a church for others," rings true for me. Mission, namely announcing the availability and accessibility of God's power, is why we exist.

Carlus Gupton and I recently had a conversation that about some of the structures and forms that are emerging in many north american "evangelical" churches. Carlus may need to correct this but I think what we identified are three broad models.

First, is the traditional church growth model. This is an approach that roots itself the pragmatic agenda of what works in identifying and drawing people into the life of a congregation. Lots of attention is given to the cultural nuances of society and constance attention given to the simple question of "what works."

Second is the emerging church framework. Emerging church are paying attention to culture as well. And they are asking questions about "what works." However, they are doing these things from a position clearly rooted in a postmodern worldview. (Church growth churches can be and sometimes are still viewing the world through "modern" lenses.)

The third model is one that is focused on the theological question of what does it mean to be engaged in the "mission of God." This approach begins with theology, not pragmatics. It starts with God and moves toward practice.

It would be a very interesting exercise to see how the church I serve or you serve relates to one or more than one of these models. Of course, it would be telling to see where are most clearly influenced in our understandings of what church is supposed to look like!

For myself, I am less and less interested in Saddlebacks and Willow Creeks. I am not saying that you can't learn from them. What I am saying is that I am drawn to a way of understanding church that begins with a theological perspective that is rooted in Jesus.

Rick Wood said it well: "I believe that we need a good dose of the mind of Jesus and his ministry and marketplace approach. When our people learn to live the way Jesus lived, and point the way to Jesus, then the world will see and hear. Some will accept and be saved, some will not. Our job is not to save, but to present Jesus. He is the one who draws people to himself."

What Rick is saying is not merely pleasant words. I believe that is missional strategy and should be informing our energies within our churches.

One other thing that I would throw into the mix is a follow-up on what Carlus calls "congregational environment." For some time I have been aware that the witness of the church's life together is a vital aspect of this process. As the local church lives out the ministry and mission of Jesus it is demonstrating in concrete and vital ways, the truthfulness of the claims of the gospel. Thus, our work within our churches is really the same as our work outside of our churches--calling for repentance and obedience to the way of Jesus.

Again, thanks to all of my colleagues and responders!