Tentmaking

I haven't done this before, but I'm doing it now.

If you would be so kind, I would like to ask you to read the following and give me your thoughts. Whether you consider yourself an advocate or opponent of these ideas, I would appreciate your wisdom.

Here goes...

Scripture says more about "“being"” the church than it does about "going to church."” As sincere followers of Jesus, our concern should be the active, intentional, daily engagement with the Holy Spirit in a way of life that is marked by humility, obedience, love and power. These are marks of a true disciple or follower of Jesus. The problem with simply "going" to church is that it tends to reduce the practice of the Christian life to a scheduled event that happens for a couple of hours every Sunday; church attendance gets confused with real adherence to the teachings and demands of Jesus.

And it’s getting worse.

Consider some statistics from a recent report;
1. Less than 20% of Americans regularly attend church; half of what the pollsters report.
2. American church attendance is steadily declining.
3. In only one state is church growth outpacing its population growth.
4. The increase in churches is only 1/4 of what's needed to keep up with population growth.
5. In 2050, the percentage of the U.S. population attending church will be almost half of what it was in 1990.
(Outreach Magazine May/June 2006)

People from many corners of the American church world are wringing their hands and decrying the end of church as we know it. Perhaps they should, but maybe this is good news. Maybe the decline of church-as-usual is an indication of God doing something entirely new and different right under our noses. If so, it would call for more than one new kind of ministry paradigm. Maybe we'’re at that point as a culture where, once again, form can more faithfully follow function. Maybe we can regain a solid, Biblical vision of the Kingdom and in response, create new ways of (as one author calls it,) "“churching."” This will require a radical re-thinking of leadership.

Given all this, it begs the question; is a caste of professionally trained and educated clergy is the best source from which to draw this new leadership? It seems the movement these days is from highly centralized, attractional events (we call them church services) towards smaller, more fluid, home/office-based initiatives.

I believe that these new initiatives will best be led by men and women who have the freedom to teach, shepherd and direct others without the burden of building and sustaining extensive, demanding and increasingly ineffective conventional church structures. Furthermore, their leadership could be enhanced if they could avoid total financial dependence on the churches in which they lead. If they could, like the Apostle Paul, make money by their own hands, three very important things would result: (1) Financial resources could be directed to other, more missional needs. (2) Leaders would be free of the pressure to compromise for fear of offending the ones paying his salary.” (3) In the absence of a co-dependent culture where everyone defers to the professional pastor to perform all the spiritual work, the gifts of more people would pressed into use.

On becoming and making disciples...part 2

The previous post came perilously close to obsessive focus on what's wrong with the church. Let me try to shift our eyes toward some more positive thinking.

When Jesus told us to go make disciples, he immediately followed that command with a series of statements that reveal the complexity and holistic nature of what that process involves. If you break it down phrase by phrase, several things slowly (at first for me anyway) become clearer; kind of like a long, slow gaze upon the facets of a polished gemstone.

Jesus said "go" make disciples; it's a command that implies intentionality.

The scope of this command is global; "all nations" are the focus. Not just people like me!

"baptizing them in the name of the Father...Son...Holy Spirit." the idea here includes, but is not limited to dunking. New insight for me here; to baptize in the metaphorical sense means to immerse. One of the most effective ways to learn a foreign language is called "Immersion;" where all that the person hears is, say, Spanish for an extended period of time. Doing so allows the student's ears to adjust to the tempo, sound and inflection of the language. Jesus commands us to immerse ourselves in a way of existence shaped by the very Trinity itself! We're to dive into a way of life that is patterned after the same love and power experienced by the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; that's what is meant by "in the name of..." As we order our lives around the same things that Jesus did, our ears (in a spiritual sense) get used to "hearing" God's voice.

"...teaching them to obey..." with an ever increasing capacity to "hear" God comes the responsibility to actually DO what He's telling us. When I played football in college we had a constant parade of freakish, musclebound guys who would show up on campus wanting to tryout for the team. They were huge, strong and mean, but most never made the cut because, while they had built up enormous muscle mass (some, I'm sure with the help of pharmaceutical substances of a dubious nature!) they lacked core physical and mental strength.

They looked like Tarzan and played like Jane. Learning without obedience produces the same kind of Christian.

And notice, Jesus doesn't say "teach them to enjoy creative sermons,"

or "teach them to be titilated by sophisticated theological discussions,"

or "teach them to evaluate the presentation like a spiritual food critic."

He said "teach them to obey;" nothing less is acceptable.

"...and surely I am with you..." its both a shot of encouragement and a hint of warning. In Him is the power to learn, to obey, to become a disciple. But with that comes a sobering thought; He is watching, expecting, insisting that we actually do it.

On becoming and making disciples...part 1

Jesus told us to "go and make disciples..." Its that simple.

Or is it?

Things have become confusing these days; so much heady chatter about the emergent, or missional church (take your pick) that we've lost sight of the Prime Directive given to us at the end of Matthew's Gospel. Don't get me wrong, much of the conversation regarding church in the 21st Century is worthwhile and necessary, but only insofar as it enables us to do a better job at becoming and making disciples.

Dallas Willard says, "...some might be shocked to hear that what the 'church' - the disciples gathered - really needs is not more people, more money, better buildings or programs, more education, or more prestige. Christ's gathered people, the church, has always been at its best when it had little or none of these. All it needs to fulfill Christ's purposes on earth is the quality of life that He makes real in the life of His disicples."

My fear (somebody tell me if I'm alone here!) is that most of the energy being spent in trying to make church relevant to our culture is simply a disguised attempt to hold on to (or more likely, regain) a position of power and influence. What is described as "reaching our world" may be little more than a grab for power and control. The American church spends countless millions of dollars on buildings, technology and staffing in order to produce creative, dynamic presentations (we call them church "services,") but I wonder, just who is being served; Jesus or the institution?

I know it sounds harsh.

I mean to be.

But I'm pointing the finger at my self here because I'm as much to blame for this as anyone else. Over the years, I've been responsible for spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on these things (in the form of salary, equipment and staffing) and while I did it with the best of intentions, I failed to spend the same amount of time, energy and resources on the practical, daily and mundane job of making disciples.

Again, Dallas Willard speaks with the voice of a prophet; "It is a tragic error to think that Jesus was telling us, as he left, to start churches as that is understood today."

Church is a means-to-an-end.

That end is millions of little jesus people running around thinking and acting like their Master. If church as we know it were actually doing this, there would be much less debate about it's validity and influence in our world. And how much better would things be?

How NOT to crash

It was a lesson I learned many years ago. My gymnast girlfriend (who would later become my wife) asked me to spot her while she performed a difficult maneuver on the balance beam. Having seen the carnage that can result when these tricks are done wrong, I was reluctant. But I did it anyway and to my surprise, she completed the move successfully. I was amazed...impressed...shoot, I was in love! I asked her how she did it. She said, "its all about the eyes," Its an amazing principle; the body will always follow the eyes. For a gymnast, one of the most important skills is being able to "spot" your landing. If you can see it with your eyes, chances are your body will follow along nicely. And this principle is true in almost every other sport too.

Years later I re-learned this lesson, but this time it left a scar. I was on my mountain bike bombing down a steep, narrow trail when I spotted a gnarly old root sticking up about a foot above the surface. It was coming at me so fast that I panicked and I did exactly the wrong thing; I stared right at it! I kept my gaze fixed on the only obstacle for a hundred feet in either direction. Before knew it, my front wheel struck the root squarely in the middle, the back of my bike heaved up and forward like a bucking bronco and in a flash, I was airborne. As I was saying good bye to the handlebars I remembered an article I had read in a cycling magazine days before about "How to Crash" (well, what do YOU read in the bathroom?) The author said that, while airborne, the most important thing is to tuck your chin to your chest so that you can roll when you land. So I tucked. And I rolled...sort of. In the end, I was bloodied and bruised, but alive.

Looking back, I learned that had I looked beyond the obstacle to the smooth trail not ten feet in front of that root, I would have been able to steer around it, or at least jump it. Many times since that day, I've been able to avoid danger by remembering the simple truth, "the body will always follow the eyes."

I'm thinking the same principle works on a spiritual level too. Paul said that we're transformed by the renewing of our minds (Rom. 12) so it makes sense that our focus (the "eyes of our hearts" as it were) will determine our direction. Currently, there are two issues for which this principle is extremely relevant.

The first is what we call "accountability." Much is made about the need for it as a part of a normal, healthy, Christian life. But I don't believe in it anymore; at least in the way its commonly practiced. You know the drill; a bunch of guys get together and talk about all the things they want to avoid. You know, lust, porn...and...well...lust and porn. With great zeal and sincerity they "ask each other hard questions," pray for each other and try harder next time. The problem with these groups, and the reason why they tend to be short-lived and ultimately ineffective is that the focus (the "eyes") are on the things they want to avoid. It seems to me that the pattern of New Testament teaching is to acknowledge the obstacles and dangers, but focus on the positive things. So rather than create an "accountability group" to help keep our eyes off the Playboy site, why not seek to hold each other accountable to, for example, "fix your thoughts (focus) on what is true and honorable and right...pure and lovely and admirable...excellent and worthy of praise." (Phi.4:8)


The second area has to do with the ongoing critique of conventional church. There's no shortage of criticism for church-as-usual,(and I've made my own contribution to that pile!) but if the focus continues to be on "what's wrong with the church" those of us who are trying to forge a new way forward will crash. If all we can see is the mistakes, the failures and the problems, I think all we can look forward to is making the same ones in the future ourselves. In my Bible, the Kingdom of Heaven prevails. There is reason to hope. We've been given both the Word and the Spirit of God, so even though the path ahead may be treacherous and risky, keeping our eyes focused on the right things will get us through. I'm so grateful to the many (and the number is increasing) voices out there who are quick to acknowledge problems, but are even quicker to shift their focus just a bit further ahead; towards solutions, new vision and direction from the Spirit.

There's is an example worth following, and I want to ride with them!

Its about BEING, not GOING!

For years now, I've been saying that we've got to stop going to church and start being the church. What I mean is that, as sincere followers of Jesus, our concern should be the active, intentional, daily engagement with the Holy Spirit in a way of life that is marked by humility, obedience, love and power. The problem with simply "going" to church is that it tends to reduce the practice of the Christian life to a scheduled event that happens for a couple of hours every Sunday; church attendance gets confused with real adherence to the teachings and demands of Jesus.

"Now wait just a minute!" you say, "going to church is still a legitimate way to help people live rightly and fulfill our mission!"

That's an increasingly weak argument.

A recent report issued by the Church Research Project presents a scathing indictment on church-as-usual. Seven findings are worth some serious, collective soul-searching:

1. Less than 20% of Americans regularly attend church; half of what the pollsters report.

2. American church attendance is steadily declining.

3. In only one state is church growth outpacing its population growth.

4. Mid-sized churches are shrinking; the smallest and largest churches are growing.

5. Established churches 40 to 190 years old are, on average, declining.

6. The increase in churches is only 1/4 of what's needed to keep up with population growth.

7. In 2050, the percentage of the U.S. population attending church will be almost half of what it was in 1990.

Makes me wonder what if...

What if Church-as-usual was NOT what Jesus intended? What if we worried less about getting people to come to and event and focused more on helping them become a certain kind of person? (Jesus called it being a "disciple?) What if the front door of our homes became the front door of our churches? What if we began to see our kitchen tables as sacred places? What if we spent less on buildings, sound systems, staffing and landscaping and more on strengthening the poor and oppressed? What if we deliberately created margins in our schedules that allowed for spontaneity and created space in which friendships could deepen and grow?

What if...

The Lord only knows.

Towards a more missional lifestyle

I talked with my friends last night about how we might make this idea of "being" the church a present reality instead of a vague dream. Turns out, its a more complicated discussion than we thought. But we came up with six practices (resolutions, if you will) that when practiced weekly might move us in the right direction. These are simple things that, when done in the right spirit, reflect the reality of "church" as Jesus envisioned it.

Resolved: to share at least one meal with someone outside our immediate family and (whenever possible) outside our immediate household.

Resolved: to bless two people each week. "Bless" in this sense simply means a word, a gesture or an act of service done intentionally for the simple purpose of encouraging another.

Resolved: to spend one extended time of solitude for the express purpose of listening to the Holy Spirit.

Resolved: to spend one extended time devoted to learning more about Jesus and His Way.

Resolved: to pray with my spouse for our marriage, the health of our family, the needs of our household and the mission of our church.

Resolved: to share our experience on this journey with a small group of like-minded people; either face-to-face or via phone or email.

I owe Michael Frost credit for this idea, which he called "missional practices." And I would encourage any of you reading this to consider making a similar commitment within your community be it a small group, or a larger church.

By the way, you won't need permission from your pastor to do these things!

Trust me.

Am I franchising churches or making disciples?

I asked myself this question today. (by the way, if you're not up for what may be a long, theological and cultural analysis, with a bit of confession thrown in, you might want to skip this one!)

Here's the deal; I began my second church plant in Vancouver, Washington a little over three years ago. The first time I did this, the church grew numerically and within five years had several hundred people attending weekly. That church is now more than ten years old and has an established and basically positive presence in the community...along with its share of skeletons, scandals and schisms.

In the sequel to this story, I laid out a vision for a healthy, vibrant, Christian community that would be just as dynamic (and just as big) as the last one. This last sentence reveals, in hindsight, the exact assumption I was making three years ago. If I did the same things I did before (maybe do them better) I could expect the same results and church number 2 would be a new-and-improved version of church number 1.

You know what happens when you "ass-u-me..."

After more than three years of doing essentially the same things as before, the present reality of church number 2 is this: five couples and 22 kids. No buildings, budgets, programs, staff or strategies to acquire such assets (or should I call these liabilities?). During this time, dozens of people have come, stayed for a while and left. Every departure has left its mark on those who remained. These were (and still are) friends whom we love. And without exception, the reason given for leaving centers on one issue; the church could not provide what they were looking for. It wasn't about theology, it wasn't about the character of the people or the spiritual maturity of the leadership. It wasn't even about the stated mission and vision of the church. The common denominator always came down to "we need something that your church can't provide."

None of these needs were bad or wrong; whether it was children's ministry, men's groups, women's groups, dynamic worship times etc. And they had a point; we couldn't provide these things. But what I'm coming to realize is that these things may be more of a hindrance than a help when it comes to enabling a community to become the kind of church Jesus envisioned.

In the introduction to his new book, "The Great Omission," Dallas Willard makes this statement:

"So the greatest issue facing the world today, with all its heartbreaking needs, is whether those who, by profession or culture, are identified as 'Christians' will become disciples - students, apprentices, practitioners - of Jesus Christ, steadily learning from him how to live the life of the Kingdom of the Heavens into every corner of human existence."

The need, Willard suggests, is not so much for more and better churches as much as it is for those who profess to be followers of Jesus to ACTUALLY follow Jesus...in everything...in every way. The need is not for spiritual leaders to create and market spiritual goods and services, so that those who are out "shopping" for them will come to their churches.

The real need is to become (and make) disciples.

There is a difference.

The problem I see is the assumption that numerical growth and sophisticated structure is the same thing as true Kingdom effectiveness. We confuse attendance with adherence; if lots of people are coming, it must be working! What happens next is predictable. Numerical growth creates a buzz, people start talking about what's happening at Church X. The pastor at Church X starts speaking and writing about their growth. Church X launches their own version of Church Growth seminars and resources and begins to "sell" their product to the larger Christian community. The unspoken assumption here is that if we "do" church the way Church X does it, we too will be successful. A generation ago, it was Willow Creek, then Saddleback. Now its multi-site video venues or "TV Church."

To varying degrees, these methods are successful in replicating the numerical growth of the Motherchurch, but I question their level of success in producing maturing disciples. Its harsh, I know. But don't you think, if these methods really got at what Jesus told us to do, we would see a much more positive impact on our culture? If people like George Barna (read "Revolution") are even half-right, the church-as-we-know-it is in trouble.

My hunch is that this trouble started when we started franchising church structure and style and lost sight of what it means to truly make disciples. Again, Willard shines an uncomfortable light on this issue; "The word 'disciple' occurs 269 times in the NT. 'Christian' is found three times...The NT is a book about disciples, by disciples and for disciples of Jesus Christ."

I've spent more than 20 years in large, franchise-oriented, churches. They are filled with Godly people whom I love, but there is much confusion about what this call to discipleship means in a practical sense. And I blame myself for contributing to this confusion. When I think about the sheer amount of time I've spent building, repairing and maintaining a system known as "church." and then compare that to time spent learning how to live moment-by-moment as a follower of Jesus (and teaching others to do the same)

I am ashamed.

I've spent more time franchising church than making disciples!

In order to make a living these days, I'm a part of a company that is aggressively trying to build franchises across the country. Its probably for this reason that I'm seeing more clearly the difference between disciplemaking and franchising. Consider the following comparisons;

Franchising is about capturing an ever larger market share in which to sell your product or service. Disciplemaking is about life-change or transformation.

The bottom line for the franchise is money. The goal of disciplemaking is expanding the presence of Jesus in the world through the lives of His followers.

The best franchises are built on proven methods and practices; a linear plan that promises success. If you do X and then Y the result will be Z. You can walk into a Starbucks in Seattle or Selma and it looks the same. Disciplemaking is also about growth, but that growth is systemic and slower. It is organic and not mechanistic; more like gestation than an assembly line.

Franchises require a rigid infrastructure with policies and procedures that are tested and trusted. Disciplemaking requires long-term relational connections that are flawed and messy.

Franchises thrive in a "sales culture" where there is a never-ending drive to make a profit. Disciplemaking thrives in a transformational culture that accepts slower and more obscure growth; the character of a maturing disciple may not be readily observable in the short-term.

In a franchise, money validates everything. If revenue is up, you can rightly judge the franchise a success. In disciplemaking, fruitfulness validates everything; an increasing manifestation of love, joy, peace etc. in the lives of individuals equals success.


All of this leaves me asking the question I posed at the beginning of this post; am I franchising churches or making disciples? The answer will probably not come easy.