I was invited to participate in a group at our church that will spend the next five years looking at the church's vision. The greater district has developed and piloted a process that they are now taking out to local churches like ours that want to focus on their vision. This is a program designed for healthy, mature congregations, that are seeking the growth that comes from knowing their true purpose, and then living it out effectively in their communities.
It looks like the 25 or so church leaders invited to make up our "Vision Team" represent a good cross section of nearly all the significant demographics of our church. The pastor of a nearby church who has been trained in this process will be the facilitator for us. This apparently is a "moonlighting" activity for him. We had an hour and a half orientation meeting this past Thursday, the first with everyone together, and got a good idea of what to expect.
The first two years will be involved in planning and the next three in implementing for a five-year cycle that can then repeat itself. In general I think this is a very good approach. Most ministry in churches is done without coordinated clear understanding of the mission/vision/purpose. I am excited at the prospect of what came be achieved in three years if it is activity focused by two years of seeking clear direction from agreement on vision and direction.
The process will involved individual work, small group work and delegated specialized committee work. And everything orbits around quarterly retreats that are thematic, designed to take the group through progressive steps that layer on foundations established in previous retreats and corresponding to the ongoing work as it unfolds. Like I said, it has been piloted, and seems to me to be well thought out. It looks like the right way to do things. I will throw my hat into the ring. It is a process, not the end. The result is what matters. The value is that it is a process that I think can help our church reach the result it wants. And that is the value it holds.
I do have one thing though I would like to get off of my chest. It's just me, and I will work it out as this goes on. But I did have some juice around this. So, for what it is worth. I thought that by the way this was presented, that it didn't seem very spiritual. Now, I know that I'm usually the one that is pushing for us in the church to be more professional, more technical and more artistic. I don't think that church should compromise quality in any secular areas due to being focused exclusively on spirituality, as if excellence and quality are values that are mutually exclusive from the sacred and spiritual. No, wholeness and truth demand balance, quality on both sides, we own it all. So here we are, being presented with this excellent, quality, professional program for vision/process, five-year plan, etc. etc. It was wonderful; I could have been sitting in a corporate boardroom hearing about the next great strategic plan. It was great. So what was the problem?
They were talking about church, and reading bible verses, it was all very obvious that we were in church and this was all about church. But I was uneasy. Why was I getting bugged? Then I realized. What I was hearing about was about church "culture". OK, I don't have anything against church culture. I feel safe and comfortable within it just as much as the next Christian. But you know what? A lot of the world out there doesn't like church culture. And you know what else? I don't like defending it to them. And I certainly don't like the idea of exporting it. I will vigorously oppose any idea that what we are about is exporting our quaint comfortable church culture. Again I say there is nothing wrong with our church culture. It's just that it isn't the big IT, OK? Let's not get that confused. Sometimes I think some of us do.
There were a couple times when this really hit me. Once was when the leader read the description of the first church given in the early chapters of Acts. The numbers added to their group increased daily. They were growing rapidly. Their church was attractive, popular; the focus of considerable attention. Our group leader equated this growth with the social qualities of this early church, fellowship, sharing, daily praise and worship, gathering together and then remarked, "Who wouldn't want to be a member of a church like this?"
I thought, "Wait a minute, something is missing here, he is looking at the early church through his rose-colored church-culture glasses." I'm thinking a better question to ask is why would anyone want to join a church like this? Ananias and Sapphira showed us that if you lied in this first century church you could be struck down dead on the spot. What would our church membership look like if it had that kind of accountability? Another member of this church, Stephen, didn't hold back anything. He told the whole truth when he was brought before the leaders of Israel for questioning, then he was executed for it. So let's get this straight, people in this church who stretch the truth are struck down dead. Pretty harsh. And people who are brutally honest are killed for it. Cold. Seems like you're damned if you do and damned if you don't in this church.
So what was the real reason people flocked to join up by the thousands? See my post at dr. david - "My Essay" September 1, 2001 where I go into it more. But basically it boiled down to the fact of death. The people of that time were convinced that the members of this new church had power over death. They had seen it with their own eyes. People that were dead were now walking around, living, alive, walking and talking. Literally. And these people were now giving this power away; offering eternal life to any who would come.
So I ask you, what are we offering, membership in a cool social club? Or the power to walk away from the grave? It's a big question. It maybe is the only question.
The second thing that hit me was when the leader stated, "All churches inevitably experience conflict." He then had us break out into smaller groups to answer three questions: Why do churches experience conflict? What is the downside of conflict in churches? What might be beneficial from conflict in churches? The discussion and conclusions were telling. To summarize: Churches experience conflict because people are sinful, because they come from different backgrounds (and other social reasons). The downside is that people might leave the church and walls might go up, relationships would be hurt. The benefits would be that conflict could bring growth.
These responses are fine for any social/political group of people anywhere. No problem with that, as far as it goes. But like I said at the beginning, what about the spiritual? What makes us any different than any other human organization? Are we any different? That early church was. They brought dead people back to life. Pretty different. So what am I thinking? A spiritual church that comes under conflict is operating in a different way. Ben Patterson, pastor and author said something I will always remember. When we chose to place our faith and trust in Jesus Christ "...we chose sides." There is spiritual battle going on, a great unseen war, enormous, epic in scope. And we play a part. There is no neutral, no sidelines, no spiritual "Switzerland." A church in conflict is a church locked in a spiritual battle.
Why do churches experience conflict? You could say it is inevitable. Churches are at war spiritually. You would expect that as the church becomes more effective, the spiritual opposition would become more intense. What would be the downside of this kind of spiritual conflict? The worst consequence would be to not see it for what it is. To attribute all conflict to natural sources only. Then attempt to deal with problems only at the human level. This would limit the effectiveness of the church to only what any other simple human organization could accomplish. The church would effectively relinquish its power. This, I think, is what most modern cultural churches have done. So much for bringing dead people back to life.
What would be the benefit of spiritual conflict? It would necessitate an authentic, continuous, dependent relationship on God. It would require an agenda, a mission, a vision, a purpose that was not ours, but His. It would propel us into service for Him, with Him, in a great plan laid out by Him from before time. They said conflict brings growth? I say, spiritual conflict drives us to God, and then, we can become who we were always meant to be.
So I have high hopes, and I dream big. I think the process they have prepared for our church is probably a good one. I believe in people. Especially people that have given their lives over to God. We all want the same thing. God's plan. It's all about Him. I'd like to make sure that we keep our eye on the ball. And something else Patterson said. God made us for the ocean, and He has it out there just waiting for us. But we've settled for the mud puddle. And now too many of us think that the puddle is all there is, and worse, that it is enough. How tragic.
I can hear the waves crashing, can you? The ocean is so close by. Our God offers us His world, a life of adventure and purpose lived out with Him in endless and unfathomable possibilities. I can smell the sea-salt in the air, and I long for it. You might say, "Our mud puddles may be wretched, horrid and miserable places to stay, but at least we know what to expect and we have some degree of control over things." And I guess you might be right. But I'm really tired of the mud. We were made for more than this. I just know it. Lazarus walked out of his grave. Can you imagine? Can you imagine? Help me find the ocean. Will you? Come, help me find the ocean.
Nuf for now. My chest feels much lighter.