There is a diametrical difference between a "Missional Church" and a "Church with a Mission." A missional church is made of radically transformed individuals who express the love of Christ on a daily basis. They understand Christ's call to "take up their cross" and have a real burden for the many lost around them. (Luke 15) For them, great rejoicing comes, not from increased numbers but from one persons being transformed by the Holy Spirit. Pastors are coaches who enable these individual ministers to encourage, admonish, and strengthen the body of Christ.
A "Missional Church" can have a pipe organ or an Alternative Rock Worship band because the celebration is a result of the joy of witnessing those once lost becoming found. Those once dead, finding new life. A "Missional Church" doesn't look to program or style for effectiveness. This church relies on prayer and the power of the Holy Spirit. Biblical hunger drives the church more than program and finances.
Sadly, I'm afraid a vast majority of North American Church are "Churches with a Mission." The goal here is to sustain the organization for "God's sake." Kingdom effectiveness is measured by increased persons involved as well as financial resources collected. Vast sums of money are invested into property and buildings. Programs, which may have powerfully effected people 20 or 30 years ago, are maintained at great cost both in time and money. Participants spend countless hours attempting to make these "Ministries" relevant even as our culture totally ignores them. These churches are like Choirs, singing to themselves. Contemporary Christian radio stations broadcasting to the saved. Jesus left the 99 sheep to rescue the 1 lost sheep. "Churches with a Mission" believe that keeping the 99 sheep well fed, well organized, and unified will cause the lost sheep to find it's way back to the fold.
Pastors are burning out of pastoral ministry in alarming rates because in "Churches with a Mission," the flock are consumers feeding off the energy of the organization. Most of this energy is generated by the professional pastoral staff.
Missional Churches, however, have a majority of individuals with a conviction to minister the gospel where they live, work and play. Pastors become coaches, inspiring, challenging, and equipping persons to reach more of the lost around them. For a "Missional Church," the joy of the Lord becomes their strength. A joy which is energized each time a lost sheep is found, a lost coin is recovered, or a lost son returns home. Where they worship, what style they incorporate, or the numbers of participants is not that important.
By: Steve Shomo
"Intentional Influence" Who are we allowing to influence our lives?
The single most important thing in my life, over the past 2 years, has been who I intentionally allow to influence me. If I surround myself with people who have the same skill set, the same amount or less experience than I do, the same passions, the same knowledge, the same convictions, etc....then I limit my ability for God to teach me.
Currently I have an accountability partner who struggles with things that I am strong in and I struggle in things the he is strong in, this allows stern correction, strategic guidance, and honest prayer. Also, I have 3 people who I consider mentors all in which are people who I could call on any given day for any particular reason. All three of these people have different strengths, minor theological differences, gift sets, etc. I think that the more I broaden myself, the more God works in me.
Contemporary vs Traditional Styles
This was written by a family member that has childern about the same age as Beth and I. He is a faithful man of God and has some things to say about his generation and the generations after him. Please feel free to add anything to it or imput some thoughts.......
Human nature leads people to spend their time, money, and talents on things that are either fun or important (or in the best of circumstances, both). I think the younger generation has largely forsaken traditional churches because they are seen as neither fun nor important. I do not believe that the younger generation hates church; rather, they feel it is irrelevant.
Part of the problem is the message. Many churches, as you have pointed out in an earlier E-mail, essentially teach that being a Christian means obeying numerous rules that are mostly prohibitions against certain behaviors. Young people find that to be a major turn-off because they don't see the importance of trying to live in a straight jacket. Furthermore, they are skeptical about this "code of Christianity" because they see people in the church who pay lip service to these rules but don't actually follow many of them.
This is very analogous to the Pharisees in the time of Christ. They took the Ten Commandments and a handful of other instructions given to them by God and built a huge legal system that took all the joy out of serving God and imposed an impossible burden on those who tried to follow the rules. An even bigger part of the problem, I think, is that the worship style of the traditional church does not speak to the younger generation. They have grown up in an era of fast-paced, continuous sensory stimulation -- of television, movies, video games, cell phones, PDAs and theme parks. They find the traditional worship style boring, to put in bluntly. Pipe organs and classical anthems might as well be slide rules and buggy whips as far as they are concerned. The language of the church and the style of worship does not connect.
The interesting thing is that worship style and worship procedure is a creation of man -- not a mandate from God. In Jesus' time there were no pipe organs, grand pianos, acolytes, robed choirs, etc. All of that was introduced by people for the purpose of creating meaningful worship, and it reflected the highest ideals of the culture at the time these worship elements came into being. The culture has subsequently changed, but not the church.
The essentials of church are the message of the transforming Gospel of Jesus Christ, ministering to the needs of the people, helping Christians grow spiritually, and providing opportunities for believers to live out their faith. Everything else is debatable and optional.
Ironically, the younger generation is interested in finding answers to life's tough questions: Why are we here? Is there a God, and if there is, can we know him? Where is life headed? What is our ultimate destiny? Are there moral standards that truly matter? But many traditional churches do not spend much time explicitly addressing these issues, and if they do address them, it is not in a language that can be understood by the younger generation.
Our traditional form of church does meet the needs of some -- generally those who are 40 years of age or older and who have grown up with a faith tradition. I am not advocating that all traditional churches should change their style and approach to worship and ministry. But clearly some non-traditional churches are also needed to reach younger persons who have no faith background. The success of Saddleback and Willow Creek demonstrate that if the message is delivered in the right way and if ministry is geared to those with limited faith backgrounds, they can be drawn to Christ -- and in large numbers.
Human nature leads people to spend their time, money, and talents on things that are either fun or important (or in the best of circumstances, both). I think the younger generation has largely forsaken traditional churches because they are seen as neither fun nor important. I do not believe that the younger generation hates church; rather, they feel it is irrelevant.
Part of the problem is the message. Many churches, as you have pointed out in an earlier E-mail, essentially teach that being a Christian means obeying numerous rules that are mostly prohibitions against certain behaviors. Young people find that to be a major turn-off because they don't see the importance of trying to live in a straight jacket. Furthermore, they are skeptical about this "code of Christianity" because they see people in the church who pay lip service to these rules but don't actually follow many of them.
This is very analogous to the Pharisees in the time of Christ. They took the Ten Commandments and a handful of other instructions given to them by God and built a huge legal system that took all the joy out of serving God and imposed an impossible burden on those who tried to follow the rules. An even bigger part of the problem, I think, is that the worship style of the traditional church does not speak to the younger generation. They have grown up in an era of fast-paced, continuous sensory stimulation -- of television, movies, video games, cell phones, PDAs and theme parks. They find the traditional worship style boring, to put in bluntly. Pipe organs and classical anthems might as well be slide rules and buggy whips as far as they are concerned. The language of the church and the style of worship does not connect.
The interesting thing is that worship style and worship procedure is a creation of man -- not a mandate from God. In Jesus' time there were no pipe organs, grand pianos, acolytes, robed choirs, etc. All of that was introduced by people for the purpose of creating meaningful worship, and it reflected the highest ideals of the culture at the time these worship elements came into being. The culture has subsequently changed, but not the church.
The essentials of church are the message of the transforming Gospel of Jesus Christ, ministering to the needs of the people, helping Christians grow spiritually, and providing opportunities for believers to live out their faith. Everything else is debatable and optional.
Ironically, the younger generation is interested in finding answers to life's tough questions: Why are we here? Is there a God, and if there is, can we know him? Where is life headed? What is our ultimate destiny? Are there moral standards that truly matter? But many traditional churches do not spend much time explicitly addressing these issues, and if they do address them, it is not in a language that can be understood by the younger generation.
Our traditional form of church does meet the needs of some -- generally those who are 40 years of age or older and who have grown up with a faith tradition. I am not advocating that all traditional churches should change their style and approach to worship and ministry. But clearly some non-traditional churches are also needed to reach younger persons who have no faith background. The success of Saddleback and Willow Creek demonstrate that if the message is delivered in the right way and if ministry is geared to those with limited faith backgrounds, they can be drawn to Christ -- and in large numbers.
Another Possible Name.
"Network" Community Church. It's kind of double meaning - because we would be literally networking, as the term means, but also "working the net" that God calls us to cast out. Still using the 'net' as in fishing, but also using a work that says something about the structure of the church. There could be many house groups to start, which is forming a network, or as the church grows it plants more churches and they become a network of churches.
"Netcast" Community Church. It comes out of Matthew 4 where Peter is casting his net to catch fish and Jesus rolls up and says, I'll make you fisher of men. Therefore we are a church that casts nets rather than moving fish.
Let us know what your thoughts are.
"Netcast" Community Church. It comes out of Matthew 4 where Peter is casting his net to catch fish and Jesus rolls up and says, I'll make you fisher of men. Therefore we are a church that casts nets rather than moving fish.
Let us know what your thoughts are.
Church in the title.
The word "church" in the title of Netcast Community Church, here are some thoughts. I recentially read a study that stated culture today actually doesnt feel uncomfortable with the word "Church" in the church title. It actually makes the culture feel a little more comfortable knowing that it isn't some sort of a cult or weird religious organization. The thing that people feel more intimated about is a denomination's name in the church title. The study concluded that the word "Church" seemed to do more good than harm which was surprising to me, since we live in a culture that seems to hate the church.
Anyone have an opinion on this?
Anyone have an opinion on this?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)