Hacking Christianity

Showing posts with label church growth. Show all posts

Order, Chaos, and Jesus

Tuesday, September 30, 2008 Labels: christianization, church growth, group theory 0 comments

What does the Joker and Luke Skywalker have in common? They both oppose order: be it rational order in Gotham City, or the Empire's New Order.

But don't take my word for it. When two blogs that I follow type up very similar posts, I have to wonder if they are reading each other (actually, I know they do).

But check out these quick hits because anytime theology, Batman, and Star Wars are in the same post, you know it's gonna be good.

Blake Huggins: The Joker was/is right . He writes about the Joker quote while he was in the hospital room with Two-Face. But he had this tidbit which caused me to think a bit:

[W]e had all been conditioned to go along with “the plan,” even if, as The Joker notes, the plan is horrifying. The plan was indeed horrifying, but most everyone went right along with it because the establishment said so and had, in effect, manufactured the consent of the masses beforehand.

It seems to me that unless this hegemony of thought is somehow subverted, not necessarily by complete chaos, but by intentional anarchic acts of liberative resistance and inquiry, the established Order will continue to see that everything goes according to plan.

Jonathan Brink: Order v. Chaos . He writes about Darth Vader's plan to bring Order to the Galaxy, which Luke rejects and parallels it to the existence of Dictators and evil men in a world that God brought "order" to in Creation:

[W]e’re left with the same question Darth Vader presents to Luke. “Join me and we can bring order to this planet.” Taking these men down seems right. But in doing so, we’re left with the question of which side we’re joining. Is control and order really the answer? Is force really the most restorative pathway?

Because once I join the effort to control, I then approve of its measure. If I approve of the killing of these people, to remove what seems like the chaos of the universe, I approve of the removal of me the moment I create chaos. And that line of order becomes entirely subjective on any side. It can be moved at any time based upon whim and circumstance, or as the men above choose. And what eventually occurs is a culture based in fear, not freedom. The order that was supposed to happen occurs, if only for a select group of people. As long as we’re on the good side, we’re safe. But step over the line and we’re at risk.

Done reading? Good. Thoughts?

Think about religion and politics abuses like these idiot pastors. By amassing political power into the church, they risk prescribing Christian behavior instead of embracing our human freedom to choose it. And that's a failure of the church even if it results in outlawed "unChristian" behavior.
Think about church growth. By systematically encouraging church growth through marketing principles with an "ends justify the means" paradigm, we risk Order overturning the chaotic relationships that often result in Christian discipleship.
Think about pastors and church leaders. Do you regard them as prophetic in every word they say? I have to wrestle with and challenge even my closest of prophetic friends, because I won't let them sell me a plan that I'm not with.
Think about Jesus. Better yet, read what both these bloggers write about Jesus and Order.

Blake : maybe Jesus has more in common with the Joker than we are willing to admit. Indeed, perhaps Jesus goes even further than the Joker by actually taking on the violence of the established Order and unmasking it for what it is — and the best part is that he, unlike the Joker, refuses to play by the rules of the Order, that is, by participating in violence. Thus, Jesus is the ultimate villian of the established Order.

Jonathan : I keep thinking of the moments Jesus is standing in front of Herod and dying on the cross. He could have assumed control and brought order to the world. But to do so would be to go against love. Instead he established a world based in chaos that allows people to harm each other. But more importantly, he provides the ability to transcend that chaos through love by the power of His Spirit. It’s a culture based in the exact opposite, in freedom not in fear.

I've got a lot to think about. I don't really have a well-thought-out plan of how to respond to these excellent (and geeky) posts. Do you?
Type the rest of your post here

Read full post >>

Interfaith Musings: Charity Competitions

Tuesday, July 29, 2008 Labels: church growth, interfaith 1 comments

Image by Getty Images via DaylifeAt the Gospel for Asia (GFA) annual conference, a missionary spoke about Myanmar missions were bearing fruit (via Ray Fowler):

More than 1.6 million homes were destroyed and 1.3 million acres of fertile crop land were damaged as the cyclone swept across an area known as “the rice bowl of Myanmar.”

Then GFA missionaries and volunteers showed up with emergency food and supplies. The missionary leader himself was on the crew of volunteers who helped serve food to survivors who took refuge at the GFA Bible College in Yangon (Rangoon). He, and every other missionary who served with him, were letting their lives preach the sermons during those days.

To an extent, this is what I was struggling with on a previous post (Hacking the Apostle's Creed). I think there are times to celebrate missions over conversions.

I remember a story of the first supply plane that landed after a terrible storm in Africa, and the people who were without food or water gathered around the plane. The suppliers opened boxes and started handing out....bibles. Whoops.

So, kudos to the missionaries for appropriate action. However, there is still a comparative aspect to the action that bothers me:

The people in this majority Buddhist country were stunned at the love these Christians showed to them. Two families who went without food for seven days after the storm articulated their thoughts about Jesus to the missionaries who brought them food.
“Buddha did nothing while we were suffering. But your Jesus loves us,” the missionary reported. “Now every Sunday they are coming to church and worshipping the Lord.”

I'm unsure how I feel about criticizing the humane ethic of other religions and turning charity into a competition. While I know the missionary is recounting the words of another, emphasizing the "superior" help of Christianity over Buddhism is not very nice, nor accurate. While the numbers may say that Christians help more people than Buddhists, that doesn't mean that Christians are "better" than Buddhists.

In short, charity shouldn't be a competition between faiths, or even between churches or groups within the same faith. We all do what we can, and be thankful for the opportunity to help.

Thoughts?

Read full post >>

From Spider to Starfish Churches [4of4]

Wednesday, July 9, 2008 Labels: church growth, series, starfish 1 comments

This series is focused on The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations by Brafman and Beckstrom. Come check it out every Wednesday in June!

Part I: To Consolidate or Decentralize?
Part II: Starfish Culture needs Starfish Churches
Part III: Starfish Churches are Leaderless

For our last section on this series, let's apply this directly to the problem of leadership in churches. Jeremy Pryor, at From Eden to Zion, offers this scenario:

Perhaps pastors should imagine that they are going to have three more years in their parish as pastor—and that there will be no replacement for them when they leave.

*blink* whoa. Powerful scenario. In essence, it is asking what if you had to turn a spider church (a hierarchical church) into a starfish church or else it would die. Hmm...what would this mean?

If they acted as if this were going to happen, they would put the highest priority on selecting, motivating, and training lay leaders that could carry on as much as possible of the mission of the parish after they left. The results of three sustained years of such an approach would be quite significant. Even revolutionary.”

Absolutely. This form of ministry focus gels nicely with our Starfish churches discussion on leadership. By empowering the laity and removing hierarchical leadership, a revolution will certainly occur in the church.

Greg Ogden also has the above scenario in his 2003 book Transforming Discipleship. However, he embraces a leadership system that simply refines the spider church.

Better to give one year or so to one or two men [sic] who learn what it means to conquer for Christ than to spend a lifetime with a congregation just keeping the program going.

I'm definitely not with this approach to concentrate knowledge and leadership on a few disciples. I know that's the way JC went, but a mass appeal is stronger for decentralized churches (which is what you'd end up with) rather than replacing the pastor with a few pastors, who would be stuck in the same power-over system.

That said, you do need catalytic leadership, and perhaps that's what Ogden is getting at. You do need a few people who can turn the tables upside down in a structured way, and then let them step aside. Finding that sweet spot of leadership is tricky, but necessary in the Brave New World we are in.

Initiatives like bootstrap networks map out here the steps for catalytic leaders to amass renewal within their organizations.

Your turn: if you had only three years left in your parish, either as pastor or knowing your pastor will be gone, what would you do?

Thanks for considering the question, and welcome to our visitors!

Read full post >>

Church Growth: Ur Doin it Wrong

Tuesday, June 17, 2008 Labels: church growth 2 comments

We talk a lot about "church growth": how to grow churches in an increasingly secular society. Megachurches and growing churches abound. How can we sell enough donuts and books to get more people to come to church. Etc.

Given all this, how about a Case Study?

There once was a church that began small, gathered hundreds of people, then the pastor said things that insulted people and was arrested. At the end, the church had dwindled to a few dozen members, without a pastor to lead them.

On a church growth model...is that church a failure?

My friends...that's the church of Jesus.* Jesus had hundred of followers who came for the healings and miracles, then strayed away when the hard lessons came. At the end of the Passion, he had only a few dozen disciples (men and women)* following him.

It is this lesson that one of my new favorite bloggers, Jonathan Brink, reminds us:

One of the most dangerous things you can do as a Christian is to think really small and pour your love into twelve people. And the cool thing is that it doesn’t even require a license.

To take away from this post:

If you are a church that is dealing with being half-time or shrinking, remember that small groups are the basic building blocks of the kingdom of God. Strengthen them.
The next time you read a book on church growth, also check out Leonardo Boff's Ecclesiogenesis, a powerful short book on base communities. And you will value your church's size again.

Church growth experts? Maybe you are doing it wrong.

Your thoughts?

* of course, Jesus didn't come to start a church. But the parallel still works, so forgive me framing the Jesus movement in non-historical terms for the sake of making a point.
* thanks to T.L. Steinwert for reminding me that disciples are women AND men. This line has been re-written from its first version...the original language was "disciples and women"

Read full post >>

What's the Tipping Point for Consolidating Churches?

Monday, June 16, 2008 Labels: church growth 1 comments

A friend sent me an article in the Boston Globe that has an interesting comparison that I hadn't thought much about:

At a time when the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Boston and other Catholic dioceses around the nation have been closing parishes that attract as many as several hundred worshipers a week, Protestant denominations are supporting congregations a fraction of that size. Although both Catholic and mainline Protestant denominations face falling attendance at worship, these different branches of the Christian family are taking radically different approaches to determining whether a congregation is viable, and who should decide what to do about a failing church.

Catholic dioceses, with power strongly concentrated in the hands of bishops and a theology that says only priests can celebrate Mass, are citing declining numbers of worshipers, dollars, and clergy in moving aggressively to consolidate churches. The Archdiocese of Boston has closed nearly one-quarter of its parishes over the past decade. But Protestant denominations, which often emphasize congregational independence and democratic decision-making, are leaving many of their small churches open, avoiding the controversy that has characterized the Catholic process but allowing for a sizable number of struggling, even moribund, congregations with minimal programming and part-time clergy.

For everyone's benefit, moribund means "approaching death." You know you didn't know it either.

I hadn't thought about how different the two religious systems approach congregational viability. But it is true: even if a parish is economically viable and has a few hundred members, the archdiocese will often close it. But on the other side of the ecumenical rail, my United Methodist church has 35 people on a Sunday morning, and we are not closing anytime soon.

To my eyes, there are several major reasons for the RCC version of congregational sustainability:

Image. The image of a failing church is not one that the RCC wants, so if a congregation even gets anywhere close to that, they will close the church.
Decision-making. At Annual Conference, we closed two United Methodist churches, by a vote of the people, bishop, superintendent, and local congregation. There much more people involved in the process, so no wonder Catholic Bishops can close churches much easier.
Money. This may seem like a cheap shot, but I know the Boston Archdiocese has been selling off property to pay for clergy abuse suits. Other denominations may have similar suits, but the way they are affiliated means any monetary damages stop with the local church.

On the Protestant side of supporting smaller churches, that seems empowering. But is it? There's these considerations for consolidating churches:

Proper Leadership. The scrappy parishes that finally shed their insecurity can find they can be resurrected. But smaller churches means often green ministers or local pastors (non-seminary-trained) take the reins. While that gives them energetic or contextual leadership, is it really a good idea to send new pastors to really struggling churches?
Small Communities are PERFECT. One of the finest churches I've ever been to is based off of Leonardo Boff's concept of Base Communities: small grassroots churches. If it is one's ministry model to be small, then denominational leaders need to make room for that.
Zombie Churches. I know of a few churches that have less than a dozen members in a huge church...because they have large endowments that pay for the church costs. If the church put everything on automatic withdrawal from their bank account, they could exist forever even if not a living soul is in the pews. Is that really ministry? Is that really what the givers of those endowments would want, rather than giving that money to a viable ministry a few streets over?

I'm not a big fan of the arbitrary numbers that say you need 120 people to start a new service, or if you fall under 80 active parishioners you cannot sustain a pastor. But are there other non-numerical considerations?

What should be the tipping point to consider changing a denominations' policy on consolidating churches?
What should a local congregation consider as they seek to close smaller churches and move into different ways of ministry?

Thanks for your thoughts, and welcome to our visitors!