Church

Faith in America: Not What it Used to Be?

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

plantation-church

I appreciate the perspective of this editorial from the March 12, 2009 Kingsport Times-News. The editor integrates both history and contemporary polling data.  It eschews any alarmist inclinations and refutes any distorted notions that America was a distinctively Christian country upon it’s founding. 

I think this perspective is helpful.  I am especially hopeful that it will help in preventing Christians from mistaking either patriotism or isolationism as being synonomous with being a Christian in America. 

Whatever the current data indicates – and I suspect it changes day-to-day – our focus is not changed.  Fundamentally we are called to personally grow in grace and live out the gospel in the communities where God has placed us; to plant churches in areas underserved by faithful congregations; and to partner to see churches planted among Unreached People Groups around the world.

***

KINGSPORT – This week, the results of a new poll were eagerly distributed by national news media as evidence that faith is on the skids in America and that more and more U.S. citizens have no religion at all.

According to the latest American Religious Identification Survey, 15 percent of respondents say they have no religion, compared to 8.2 percent in 1990. The survey also recorded a decline in those identifying themselves as a member of an institutional Christian church. In 1990, 86 percent made that claim; it’s now down to 76 percent.

This isn’t necessarily evidence of anything terribly new or irreversible in the religious life of the nation. Nor do these percentages represent anything even approaching the low point in the history of American church participation. To do that, you have to go back a long, long time.

On the eve of the Revolutionary War, records show fewer than 20 percent of American adults adhered to a church in any significant way — a far cry from today when church membership stands at 146 million or roughly half of the population.

In colonial America, New England was the most churched. Between 1630 and 1660, adult church membership in most New England towns approached 70 or 80 percent. Membership was never universal, however, as these percentages demonstrate. Moreover, the cities of Boston and Salem quickly lost membership. By 1650, for example, fewer than 50 percent of Boston’s adults were church members.

By the 1680s, many New England towns reported church membership rates of no more than 10 to 25 percent. In 1690, on the eve of the Salem witch trials, that town’s churches could claim only 15 percent of its adults as members, including only half of the town’s well-to-do selectmen; yet today, Salem is a byword for religious fanaticism.

Church membership rates in the South were even worse.

In Virginia’s Charles Parish, for example, 85 percent of newborn Caucasian children went unbaptized between 1650 and 1680 — even though the parish supported a clergyman and sustained regular worship throughout the period. South Carolina had the highest church membership of any Southern state during the colonial period, at 16 percent. North Carolina had the lowest, at a mere 4 percent.

In 1780, the great church leader Samuel Mather guessed that scarcely a sixth of Boston’s adults attended church. Historians estimate that in New York City and Philadelphia, church membership probably did not approach 10 percent at that time.

Records also show that most church members during the colonial period were women. Indeed, from the 1680s — and continuing for several decades afterward, well into the 18th century — women constituted about 60 percent of church members in most congregations.

True, revivals temporarily brought more men into congregations, especially in the 1740s, but the women’s numerical majority surfaced again when the revivals faded.

Taken as a whole, at the time of the American Revolution, between 70 and 90 percent of all European colonists in America remained unattached to any church.

Such history demonstrates our ancestors were not the Christian giants they are often made out to be. On the other hand, this week’s Religious Identification Survey merely records that more Americans are opting out of organized religion, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they’ve abandoned faith.

Seek God for the City 2009

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

seek-god-for-the-city-2009

Beginning today and continuing through Palm Sunday members of our church, individually and corporately, will join thousands of others in churches throughout the world to Seek God for the City.

Seek God for the City is an anual season of prayer initiated by Waymakers.  Using a prayer guide designed by Waymakers individuals and groups will pray for the cities and communities in which they live.

How We’re Praying: As One Body

Why We’re Praying: God’s Glory & Our Joy

Who We’re Praying For: Those Beyond Ourselves

We’re Praying Toward: God’s Purpose Fulfilled

I invite you top join us, wherever you live. It’s not too late even if you jump in mid-stream.  Just check out Seek God for the City 2009 at Waymakers.  You might also want to download thier free Children’s Prayer Guide.

Gosepl & Culture Project

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

mckees-rocks-bridge

Long has the debate endured about how we as Christians ought to relate to the surrounding culture. 

Many Fundamentalists have, for nearly a century now, advocated abandoning the culture,  just let it go to Hell, and create an alternative sub-culture.  Progressives & Liberals have advocated embracing the culture, and have even been shaped by it – often to such a degree that their faith is indistinguishable from the culture at large.  These are probably the two extreme poles representing the possible ways Christians, or anyone for that matter, can relate to the world around us.

I have found myself drawn toward a more transformational approach.  By this I mean that I am inclined to engage culture, embracing what is good and consistant with godliness, confronting (hopefully wisely) things that are in conflict with God’s standard, and trying to bring the Gospel to forefront while praying for the Lord to be at work as he redeems the Earth for his glory. 

While this is just a brief (and inadequate) snapshot of the subject, my intention is not to engage the topic here at this time.  I’ll write more in coming days.  But today I just thought I’d share a new web page that has come to my attention: The Gospel & Culture Project.

TGCP describes itself ths way:

[We are] an online community where specialists in specific areas of cultural interpretation and theological application dialogue with fellow believers about contemporary questions.

I’ve not yet thoroughly explored all the articles, but I’ve appreciated what I’ve seen so far.  And I really like the idea behind it.

Radical Reformission

/ Dennis Griffith / 1 Comment

under-the-half-moon

Long ago I shamelessly pilferred the word “Reformissional” from Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church and Acts 29 Network.  The word seemed to encapsulate what I was about.  The word is a hybrid of both Reformed and Missional, two parallel tracks that both decribe and shape my philosophy of ministry – and even, to a large degree, my philopsophy of life. 

It was sometime later that it dawned on me that the word Reformation was also part of this equation. That, too, was an important discovery.  By Reformation I am not just referring to a point in time and history, but also the goal of my mission and life. I long to see a new reformation take place in my church, my community, and across this nation.  I long to see it spread throughout the world.  I am in regular need of one in my own life.

Now, when I say such things, I understand that there are many who may become reasonably uncomfortable. It is easy to misunderstand my hope and intent, and perhaps conjure up mental images of a time when people lived under religious oppression.  Afterall, many of our history books seem to suggest that this was the inevitable outcome resulting from the Reformation of the 16th Century.  But what I have in mind should evoke no such horrid.  (Besides, many of our history books are woefully in error about the Reformation, and especially the Puritan outgrowth of it.  But that is a topic for some other day.)

What I have in mind, when I say I long for a new reformation, is that I desire to see our churches constantly reshaping themselves to become more in accord with what the Scripture says they ought be. And corresponding to that, that the lives of Believers would be shaped and formed more and more by Christ, and less and less by culture, or tradition, or by anything else.  Rather than being oppressive, I belive that would be liberating. 

In his book, Radical Reformission, Mark Driscoll shares some keen insights.  I don’t embrace all of Driscoll’s views, but I did appreciate the book.  In particular, I felt the Introduction offers some important ideas that could stand alone as a challenging essay for todays churches, church leaders, and Christians.  For that reason, I am posting the following edited version of that Intro:

 

Since the mid-1990s, the conversation among young pastors has evolved from reaching Generation X, to ministering in a postmodern culture, to a more mature and profitable investigation of what a movement of missionaries would look like, missionaries sent not from America to another nation but from America to America. This “reformission” is a radical call to reform the church’s traditionally flawed view of missions as something carried out only in foreign lands and to focus instead on the urgent need in our own neighborhoods, which are filled with diverse cultures of Americans who desperately need the gospel of Jesus and life in his church. Most significant, they need a gospel and a church that are faithful both to the scriptural texts and to the cultural contexts of America. The timing of this reformission is critical. George Barna has said, “The first and most important statistic is that there are a lot of Americans who don’t go to church—and their numbers are increasing. The figure has jumped from just 21 percent of the population in 1991 to 33 percent today. In fact, if all the unchurched people in the U.S. were to establish their own country, they would form the eleventh most populated nation on the planet.”

What I am advocating is not an abandonment of missions across the globe but rather an emphasis on missions that begin across the street, like Jesus commanded (Acts 1:8).

Meanwhile, the churches in our neighborhoods may be more akin to museums memorializing a yesterday when God showed up in glory to transform people, than to the pivot points of a movement working to reform the culture of the present day. Reformission requires that we all learn the principles handed down to us from mentors who are seasoned cross-cultural missionary pioneers, such as Lesslie Newbigin, Hudson Taylor, and Roland Allen. These missionaries are most adept at helping us to cross from our church subcultures into the dominant cultures that surround us. Subsequently, at the heart of reformission are clear distinctions between the gospel, the culture, and the church.

First, the gospel of Jesus Christ is the heart of the Scriptures.  To put it succinctly, Paul said that the gospel is of primary importance and consists of Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection to save sinners, in accordance with the Scriptures (1 Cor. 15:1-8).

Second, we have the various cultures in which people live their lives (for example, ancient Jews and Gentiles; modern, urban homosexual artists; modern, rural heterosexual farmers). Our lives shape, and are shaped by, the culture we live in, and the gospel must be fitted to (not altered for) particular people, times, and circumstances so that evangelism will be effective.

Third, we have the church, or the gathering of God’s people— which includes those who are not Christians (Matt. 13:24-30) — where people are built up in their faith and knitted together in loving community. They can then faithfully engage those in the culture with the gospel, while experiencing its transforming power in their own lives.

Reformission is a radical call for Christians and Christian churches to recommit to living and speaking the gospel, and to doing so regardless of the pressures to compromise the truth of the gospel or to conceal its power within the safety of the church. The goal of reformission is to continually unleash the gospel to do its work of reforming dominant cultures and church subcultures.

Reformission therefore begins with a simple return to Jesus, who by grace saves us and sends us into mission. Jesus has called us to (1) the gospel (loving our Lord), (2) the culture (loving our neighbor), and (3) the church (loving our brother). But one of the causes of our failure to fulfill our mission in the American church is that the various Christian traditions are faithful on only one or two of these counts. When we fail to love our Lord, neighbor, and brother simultaneously, we bury our mission in one of three holes: the parachurch, liberalism, or fundamentalism.

Gospel + Culture – Church = Parachurch

First, many Christians become so frustrated with the church that they try to bring the gospel into the culture without it. This is commonly referred to as the parachurch, which includes evangelistic ministries such as Young Life and Campus Crusade for Christ. The success of these ministries is due in large part to their involvement in culture and in loving people, whereas the church often functions as an irrelevant subculture. But the failure of such ministries is that they are often disconnected from the local church, connecting unchurched people to Jesus without connecting them to the rest of Jesus’ people. This can lead to theological immaturity. Once someone is saved, he or she is encouraged to do little more than get other people saved.

Also, since parachurch ministries are often age-specific, they lack the benefits of a church culture in which all generations are integrated to help people navigate the transitions of life. This further separates families from each other if mom, dad, and kids are each involved in disconnected life-stage ministries outside of their church, rather than in integrated ministries within it.

The parachurch tends to love the Lord and love its neighbors, but not to love its brothers.

Culture + Church – Gospel = Liberalism

Second, some churches are so concerned with being culturally relevant that, though they are deeply involved in the culture, they neglect the gospel. They convert people to the church and to good works, but not to Jesus. This is classic liberal Christianity, and it exists largely in the dying mainline churches. The success of these ministries lies in that they are involved in the social and political fabric of their culture, loving people and doing good works. Their failure is that they bring to the culture a false gospel of accommodation, rather than confrontation, by seeking to bless people as they are rather than calling them to a repentant faith that transforms them. Often the motive for this is timidity because, as Paul says, the gospel is foolish and a stumbling block to the unrepentant. Liberal Christians are happy to speak of institutional sin but are reticent to speak of personal sin because they will find themselves at odds with sinners in the culture.

Liberal Christians run the risk of loving their neighbors and their brothers at the expense of loving their Lord.

Church + Gospel – Culture = Fundamentalism

Third, some churches are more into their church and its traditions, buildings, and politics than the gospel. Though they know the gospel theologically, they rarely take it out of their church. This is classic fundamentalist Christianity, which flourishes most widely in more independent-minded, Bible-believing churches. The success of these churches lies in that they love the church and often love the people in the church. Their failure is that it is debatable whether they love Jesus and lost people in the culture as much as they love their own church. Pastors at these churches are prone to speak about the needs of the church, focusing on building up its people and keeping them from sinning. These churches exist to bring other Christians in, more than to send them out into the culture with the gospel. Over time, they can become so inwardly focused that the gospel is replaced with rules, legalism, and morality supported with mere proof texts from the Bible.

Fundamentalist Christians are commonly found to love their Lord and their brothers, but not their neighbors.

Reformission is a gathering of the best aspects of each of these types of Christianity: living in the tension of being Christians and churches who are culturally liberal yet theologically conservative and who are driven by the gospel of grace to love their Lord, brothers, and neighbors.

Mountaintop Spirituality

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment
ansel-adams

The mountain journey is about becoming more aligned with God’s presence and purposes in our lives.  …The goal is not the glamour of iridescent light, but Christ-shaped encounters with others. The journey is not about getting out of this world or out of ourselves into some more glamorous place – but about getting as deeply into this world as God, in Christ, has.

 -Robert C. Morris, from Riding the Wild Mountain Ox

The Times They Are A-Changin’

/ Dennis Griffith / 1 Comment

With proper dues to Bob Dylan, “The times they are a-changin'”.   I found that glaringly evident when, earlier this week, someone sent me the following video that was oringianlly presented to a gathering of SONY executives.

When I watch this video I find myself wondering about the implications for the church, especially as it relates to our mission to extend the Gospel to the ends of the Earth.  Some things are exciting, others a little unnerving.  See what you think.

I’d be interested in any thoughts that come to mind.

Frontline Prayer

/ Dennis Griffith / 2 Comments

  

 Jack Miller, in his book Outgrowing the Ingrown Church, makes a distinction between two types of prayer meetings: Maintenance and Frontline. Miller confesses to having led both kinds in churches he  pastored. 

Here is how Miller describes each:

The Maintenance meeting was largely designed to maintain the the existing life and ministry of our congregation. Believers came to be edified by a Bible study that took up most of the hour and to pray for the internal needs of the church.  Expectancy seemed to be at a low ebb among the attenders, evidenced by the fact that none of us bothered to keep a record of prayers offered and answered. I also do not think that Christians came to this prayer meeting expecting to meet God in a life-changing encounter.”

“…The conception and format were designed more to preserve the status quo…” 

In other words, Miller is saying that people came to the meeting, perhaps out of a sense of duty, and perhaps a sincere priority. They may have acknowledged that God was present because, afterall, God said he would be. But they were not in any way effected because of God’s presence. And the prayers offered were probably from the sick list, and for some generic “blessing” on various ministries and programs.

On the other hand,

“By contrast, people came to the Frontline prayer meeting to be changed. They discovered what Augustine had emphasized, that man’s chief need is to fellowship with God, to find fulfillment in Him, and to experience the abiding presence of Jesus. (Psalm 27.4; Psalm 36.7-9; John 14.18-23; John 15.1-10)  So they came to be changed, and they were changed because Jesus kept his promise to be wherever two or three gather in his name. (Matthew 18.19-20)  From him they received grace to confess and forsake their sins, to be touched with his compassion for the lost, and to go forth to ‘put feet on their prayers’ through witnessing by words and deeds of love.”

“…The Frontline prayer assembly has a revolutionary purpose.  The prayer of those who attend it is summarized in the words: ‘Thy Kingdom Come’.  Their spirit imparted desire is to see the power of God’s kingdom revealed and to see the social segregation of the ‘turned-in’ church replaced by a welcoming community of faith and love.

Having spent most of his pastoral ministry leading the maintenance oriented church, and despearate to experience the presence of God, Miller “began to pray for the Spirit’s presence… with almost everything I did.  I especially began to pray with shameless boldness for his working in our prayer meeting.  I asked God to give us His Spirit that we would know how to pray, that our hearts would be surrendered to His missionary will, and that we would leave the prayer meeting freed of guilt and fear and ready to witness fearlessly for Christ.”

Frequently Miller asked God to visit the church and equip the people with three things:

1. His self-forgetting love for others.

2. his wisdom for praying specifically and intelligently

3. His boldness for prayer and risk-taking witness.

Miller says a Frontline Prayer Meeting itself becomes an expression of kingdom power when the following conditions are met:

1. Faith/Expectancy

A minimum of two or three believers gathered together to devote themsleves to prayer and confidently claim Jesus’ promise to be present with them. (Matthew 18.20; Acts 1.13-14; Acts 2.42)

2. Oneness of Purpose

A seeking of “agreement” (Matthew 18.19) or “one-mindedness” (Acts 1.14; Acts 2.1; Acts 4.24; Romans 15.5-6) on key subjects for prayer.

3. Authority

A humble but bold claiming of the authority of Jesus’ name in making requests of the Father. (Matthew 18.20; John 15.16; John 16.24)

4. Commitment

A surrender to the will of Christ as revealed in the Great Commission, and a willingness to take “risks” in obeying that will.  (Acts 1-4)

As our church, Walnut Hill Prebyterian, ventures into 40 Days of Prayer, on our journey toward becoming a House of Prayer, we would be wise to learn from Jack Miller’s insight and experience.

“Lord, be gracious to us, and shine your face upon us.”

Becoming a House of Prayer

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

Jesus said:

“My house shall be called a House of Prayer for all Nations.”

It is my dream for our church, Walnut Hill Presbyterian, to become a House of Prayer.  That dream is shared by the Elders of the church, and by several members. 

Don’t get me wrong. Walnut Hill is, in many respects, a praying church.  We have a number of faithful & powerful prayer warriors among our number.  Wednesday evenings were set apart for a service of prayer long before I arrived on the scene a little over a year ago.  And each Saturday morning the Elders meet at the church at 7:30am to pray for our members and our community. (This is another practice that was already in place before I returned to Tennessee.) 

I don’t know how one would gauge such a thing, but I suspect that Walnut Hill would rank among the upper percentiles for prayer among churches in the USA.

But still, that is not what I am hoping for.  It is not the same thing.  There is a difference between a praying church and a House of Prayer. In fact, Cheryl Sacks, in her book The Prayer Saturated Church, lists several differences:

1. A church that prays may have a limited number of people involved in a prayer ministry; A House of Prayer involves the entire congregation.

2. In a praying church there may be little, or even no, regular emphasis from the pulpit about the ministry of prayer; A House of Prayer regualarly teaches and emphasizes the priority of prayer from the pulpit.

3. In a praying church very little training is offered to people to prepare them for prayer. It may be assumed that prayer is easy, and people already know how to pray.  In a House of Prayer it is recognized that prayer can be hard work, and many people feel inadequate about their prayer life. Therefore classes, seminars, and other opportunities for prayer and training in prayer are offered.

4. In a praying church it may be that only a few leaders attend prayer meetings, with no regular commitment. In a House of Prayer ALL leaders, and staff, have a burden for prayer, and have made it a priority in their lives to participate in the prayer meetings.

5. In praying churches groups or committees open with prayer as an item on the docket or agenda. In a House of Prayer groups spend time praying together, pray at regular or spontanious times throughout the meeting, and set times of prayer in addition to regular meetings. 

6. In a church that has a prayer ministry, there may still be something that is lacking in the atmosphere because prayer may be feeble. In a House of Prayer there is a fresh flowing of the presence of the Holy Spirit that permeates the atmosphere of the church. 

7. In churches that pray members have the freedom to pray; In a House of Prayer there is a natural flow of prayer going on throughout the church.

8 In a church that prays, having a ministry staff person is not recognized as a viable part of the church staff. In a House of Prayer a prayer coordinator is an essential member of the staff, and may even be a paid staff member.

These are just some of the distinctions. Some are subtle, while others are glaring, differences.  (Click to read Slacks actual and complete list: God’s Standard.)

Another difference between a church that prays and a House of Prayer is the focus and substance of the prayers offered.  Jack Miller, in his book Outgrowing the Ingrown Church, makes the distinction between two types of prayer meetings: Maintenance or Frontline. Miller confesses to having led both kinds in churches he had pastored.  I will offer more insight about what Miller says about these in another post, but here is the essence of each: 

Maintenace prayer meetings focus on perpetuating the status quo. Prayers are offered with little expectancy, and usually from the hosptial list and for some generic ‘blessing’ on the ministries and programs of the church.

Particiapnts in the Frontline prayer meetings expect to encounter God, and to be changed as a result of that encounter.  The prayers offered are specific expressions of “Thy Kingdom come. They Will be done…”  In other words, the purpose is, by God’s grace and power, to advance Christ’s Kingdom. 

There are a number of reasons why many churches are not as effecive in prayer as they might hope to be.  Chief among these reasons are probably:

1. Prayer is hard work.

2. People don’t know how to pray.

You might be surprised that I suggest people don’t know how to pray.  But you shouldn’t be.  This disciples, who were mentored by Jesus, didn’t know how. That’s why thay asked: “Lord, teach us to pray.” (Luke 11.1)   Apparently effective prayer is something that needs to be learned. It takes work.

We want to take some steps toward becoming a House of Prayer. 

Beginning Sunday October 5, Walnut Hill Church will participate in 40 Days of Prayer. During these next eight weeks we will coordinate our Sunday School classes with our morning messages; and we will encourage one another to make prayer a more focused part of our daily lives.

While effective prayer will always be hard work, to alleviate some of the practical difficulties that often hinder people from getting started we will: 1) supply church members with some tools to assist them in prayer; 2) introduce new opportunites to pray for our neighbors and community through PrayerWalking. (If this is a new concept to you, click: Practical PrayerWalking, to read a brief introduction by WayMakers.  Also click on What is PrayerWalking? and How to PrayerWalk on the WayMakers page.)  

If you are a part of the Walnut HIll family, we ask that you join us on this journey.  Whether you are part of Walnut Hill or just someone who stumbled on this page, we ask that you pray for us: that God, by his grace, and for his glory, would transform us into a House of Prayer.

Pastors & REAL People

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

My friend Nathan Lewis has written a profoundly heartfelt, insightful post titled: Why So Many Pastors Don’t Get Close to Church Members.

Nathan is an excellent writer, and has a broad spectrum of interests, so that he has written a good post is no surprise.  But the theme he dares to address treads into sensitive territory: the relationships between church members and pastors.  And this post will be beneficial to those in both categories.

It is important for pastors because he expresses the pains and vulnerabilities that all pastors – and their families – have to live with.  There is a sort of catharsis in knowing that someone understands.  While not wishing the pain on anyone else, it is nice to know you are not alone -and that it is not just you!

But I think it would also be beneficial for the average church member to read Nathan’s post, and consider his reflections.  Why? Because I don’t think most church members have any idea about this dynamic; this tension that pastors, and their families, have to live with.  I think it would be helpful if you understood.  It might answer some questions you have about the way your pastor, or former pastors, have related to you.  It might give you some insight about the psyche of your pastor and his wife.  At the very least it will help you to know how to pray for your pastor.

Like Nathan, I have always chosen to befriend instead of keeping a distance. And like Nathan I have experienced the pain of rejection that accompanies the departure of a friend.  Still, I cannot imagine functioning any other way.

Whether you are a pastor or a REAL person, take a moment to read Nathan’s post.

Mapping Out Missions in Your Church

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

It was theirs for the taking. So Moses, at God’s prompting, sent a dozen spies into the Canaan to explore the land God promised to give to Israel.  But God never promised Moses that taking the land would be easy. Canaan was filled with powerful people and fortified cities.  Ten of the spies weighed the risk and decided it wasn’t worth it. Two, however, Joshua & Caleb, were men of courage, faith, and faithfulness.  God had promised them that land. God had instructed them to take it.  “Let’s roll” they said. “We should go take posession of the land. We can do it.”  (Numbers 13)

You may be in a similar situation. You may not have thought about it this way, but that is the scenario facing everyone selcted to serve on the missions committee of thier church. 

God the Son has issued a mandate for world evangelization. (Matthew 28.18-20) He intends to claim the hearts and lives of men & women, boys & girls, from every Tribe on earth.  He has promised to supply the power. (Acts 1.8)  He has guaranteed ultimate success.  Still, the task ahead is not easy.  The faithful will experience all kinds of obstacles and opposition. And just like Joshua & Caleb, some of that opposition will come from inside the camp, from those who are commissioned to partner with you, but who are too timid to carry out the mission.  Completion will take courage, commitment, and sacrifice.  It requires faithfulness.

So yo are a Joshua or a Caleb. You are on the missions committee, and you are determined to take the lands. You are just not sure exactly how to go about it. It’s a big job. What does it entail? Where do you begin?

It is important to remember that all Christians are called to the advancement of the Gospel to all Nations. This task is not the responsibility of a select few who serve, whether you volunteered or you were appointed by their church, as a missions committee.  Missions is not one ministry among many in the church.  Mission, along with worship, is the essence of Being the church. And every church member has a role, whether they are Go-ers, Senders, and/or Mobilizers.

The task of the missions committee is to facilitate the work of global missions in the church through leadership, evaluation, administration, and delegation of the various tasks associated with cross cultural ministry.  

The following list is an overview of the roles of the mission ministry.  It takes into consideration mission ministry strengths identified by mission mobilization network ACMC, but I have consolidated them into more manageable categories.  A healthy missions ministry will include every category.  However, no church can be equally great at all possible functions within each category.

Strategy

Every church must have a clear strategy that recognizes its responsibility to participate in the completion of the Great Commission, and the specific ways it will participate to accomplish that task. Simple mission involvement, while good, is not an adequate objective. 

Strategy of the church includes: Adoption of Unreached Peoples; Sending Structures; and Partnerships with Agencies and or Nationals.

Mobilization

Mobilization is active involvement toward accomplishing the remaining task of the Great Commission.

There are various roles (i.e. Go-ers, Senders, Mobilizers), various levels of readiness, and different callings among church members.  In other words, it is rare that someone will be called and prepared for career missions without having initially taken short term mission trips. On the other hand, most who go on short term trips will never be called to career missions.  Appropriate entry and preparation levels need to be offered.  And church members should be encouraged and expected to discern his/her own role in the task of reaching the Nations. 

Mobilization means getting increasing numbers of people to actively carry out their distinct role. Mobiolization means equipping them to do so.

Mobilization includes: Short Term Cross Cultural trips; Encouraging Tent-making; Adoption of Unreached Peoples; Training Candidates; Strategic Partnerships; Prayer; and Ministry to Internationals.

Care

Missionary Care focuses on caring for the missionaries, both on the field and while at home on Home Missionary Assignment, or HMA. (NOTE: This used to be referred to as Furlough).  It also applies to caring for those who are in preparation for career mission.

This is one area I anticipate our church, Walnut Hill PCA, should excel in as we grow in our missions ministry. One of the great strengths of our church – perhaps the greatest strength – is the way the people love one another.  Missionary Care is simply an extension of that love.  And this practical love is part of our mission.  Paraphrasing Francis Schaeffer: “The way we love one another is a demonstration of the Gospel we proclaim.” (John 13.34-35) 

Practical means of Missionary Care includes: Caring for Tangible, Emotional, and Spiritual Needs; Communication with Missionaries; Holistic Prayer; Funding & Support; Visiting Missionaries on the Field.

Education

Education is teaching people about God’s heart for the Nations and about the Great Commission. It keeps people informed about what God is doing around the world. It is the reminder of the remaining task. And it is the equipping of each church member to carry out his/her particular roles.

Means of Education include: Missions Conferences/Festivals; Classes & Seminars; Publications; Hands-on Experiences;  Training & Preparation for Short-term and/or career missions.

The Scope of Missions Education should include the whole church. Intentional attention should be given to Children, and to Teens, who are preparing to make life decisions.  But most adults also benefit from missions education. 

Administration

Administration is dealing with all the behind-the-scenes details of missions, and management of this ministry.  This is an important aspect of Mobilizing.  And each of the above categories requires some level of administration.

Pertaining to the missions committee, Administration includes: Policy Development; Job Descriptions for committee members, and others who serve specific functions (i.e. Missions Conference Planner); Communications with Missionaries; Missions Budget Preparation and Management; and Vetting & Selection of Missionaries to be supported.  

The task of taking the Nations for Christ through missions may seem like a battle agianst giants.  But remember, you are not doing it alone.  If each church plays its part there will be a great army advancing the Kingdom of God’s Grace.  There are more than 600 Evangelical churches in the world for every Unreached People Group.  If every church – if even a significant minority of those churches – gears up for the task, missions experts tell us that the completion of the Great Commission can very definitely be accomplished in this generation!

Pray that God would give you the spirit of Joshua & Caleb.  They recognized the strength of their opposition and the difficult battles ahead of them.  But they also knew that God would empower them to do whatever he called them to do.

The Supremacy of God in Missions Through Worship

/ Dennis Griffith / 2 Comments

by John Piper

Missions is not the ultimate goal of the church. Worship is. Missions exists because worship doesn’t. Worship is ultimate, not missions, because God is ultimate, not man. When this age is over, and the countless millions of the redeemed fall on their faces before the throne of God, missions will be no more. It is a temporary necessity. But worship abides forever.

Worship, therefore, is the fuel and goal of missions. It’s the goal of missions because in missions we simply aim to bring the nations into the white hot enjoyment of God’s glory. The goal of missions is the gladness of the peoples in the greatness of God. “The Lord reigns; let the earth rejoice; let the many coastlands be glad!” (Psalm 97.1). “Let the peoples praise thee, O God; let all the peoples praise thee! Let the nations be glad and sing for joy!” (Psalm 67.3-4).

But worship is also the fuel of missions. Passion for God in worship precedes the offer of God in preaching. You can’t commend what you don’t cherish. Missionaries will never call out, “Let the nations be glad!”, who cannot say from the heart, “I rejoice in the Lord…I will be glad and exult in thee, I will sing praise to thy name, O Most High” (Psalm 104.34; 9.2). Missions begins and ends in worship.

If the pursuit of God’s glory is not ordered above the pursuit of man’s good in the affections of the heart and the priorities of the church, man will not be well served and God will not be duly honored. I am not pleading for a diminishing of missions but for a magnifying of God. When the flame of worship burns with the heat of God’s true worth, the light of missions will shine to the most remote peoples on earth. And I long for that day to come!

Where passion for God is weak, zeal for missions will be weak. Churches that are not centered on the exaltation of the majesty and beauty of God will scarcely kindle a fervent desire to “declare his glory among the nations” (Psalm 96.3). Even outsiders feel the disparity between the boldness of our claims upon the nations and the blandness of our engagement with God.

Albert Einstein’s Indictment

For example, Charles Misner, a scientific specialist in general relativity theory, expressed Albert Einstein‘s skepticism over the church with words that should waken us to the shallowness of our experience with God in worship.

“The design of the universe…is very magnificent and shouldn’t be taken for granted. In fact, I believe that is why Einstein had so little use for organized religion, although he strikes me as a basically very religious man. He must have looked at what the preacher said about God and felt that they were blaspheming. He had seen much more majesty than they had every imagined, and they were just not talking about the real thing. My guess is that he simply felt that religions he’d run across did not have proper respect…for the author of the universe.”

The charge of blasphemy is loaded. The point is to pack a wallop behind the charge that in our worship services God simply doesn’t come through for who he is. He is unwittingly belittled. For those who are stunned by the indescribable magnitude of what God has made, not to mention the infinite greatness of the One who made it, the steady diet on Sunday morning of practical “how to’s” and psychological soothing and relational therapy and tactical planning seem dramatically out of touch with Reality–the God of overwhelming greatness.

It is possible to be distracted from God in trying to serve God. Martha-like , we neglect the one thing needful, and soon begin to present God as busy and fretful. A.W. Tozer warned us about this:

“We commonly represent God as a busy, eager, somewhat frustrated Father hurrying about seeking help to carry out His benevolent plan to bring peace and salvation to the world. … Too many missionary appeals are based upon this fancied frustration of Almighty God.”

Scientists know that light travels at the speed of 5.87 trillion miles in a year. They also know that the galaxy of which our solar system is a part is about 100,000 light-years in diameter–about five hundred eighty seven thousand trillion miles. It is one of about a million such galaxies in the optical range of our most powerful telescopes. In our galaxy there are about 100 billion stars. The sun is one of them, a modest star burning at about 6,000 degrees Centigrade on the surface, and traveling in an orbit at 155 miles per second, which means it will take about 200 million years to complete a revolution around the galaxy.

Scientists know these things and are awed by them. And they say, “If there is a personal God, as the Christians say, who spoke this universe into being, then there is a certain respect and reverence and wonder and dread that would have to come through when we talk about him and when we worship him.”

We who believe the Bible know this even better than the scientists because we have heard something even more amazing:

“To whom then will you compare me, that I should be like him?” says the Holy One. Lift up your eyes on high and see who created these (stars)? He who brings out their host by number, calling them all by name by the greatness of his might, and because he is strong in power not one is missing. (Isaiah 40.25-26)

Every one of the billions of stars in the universe is there by God’s specific appointment. He knows their number. And, most astonishing of all, he knows them by name. They do his bidding as his personal agents. When we feel the weight of this grandeur in the heavens, we have only touched the hem of his garment. “Lo, these are but the outskirts of his ways! And how small a whisper do we hear of him” (Job 26.14). That is why we cry ‘Be exalted, O God, Above the heavens!’ (Psalm 57.5). God is the absolute reality that everyone in the universe must come to terms with. Everything depends utterly on his will. All other realities compare to him like a raindrop compares to the ocean, or like an anthill compares to Mt. Everest. To ignore him or belittle him is unintelligible and suicidal folly. How shall one ever be the emissary of this great God who has not trembled before him with joyful wonder?

The Second Greatest Activity in the World

The most crucial issue in missions is the centrality of God in the life of the church. Where people are not stunned by the greatness of God, how can they be sent with the ringing message, “Great is the Lord and greatly to be praised; he is to be feared above all gods!” (Psalm 96.4)? Missions is not first and ultimate: God is. And these are not just words. This truth is the lifeblood of missionary inspiration and endurance. William Carey, the father of modern missions, who set sail for India from England in 1793, expressed the connection:

“When I left England, my hope of India’s conversion was very strong; but amongst so many obstacles, it would die, unless upheld by God. Well, I have God, and His Word is true. Though the superstitions of the heathen were a thousand times stronger than they are, and the example of the Europeans a thousand times worse; though I were deserted by all and persecuted by all, yet my faith, fixed on the sure Word, would rise above all obstructions and overcome every trial. God’s cause will triumph.”

Carey and thousands like him have been moved by the vision of a great and triumphant God. That vision must come first. Savoring it in worship precedes spreading it in missions. All of history is moving toward one great goal, the white-hot worship of God and his Son among all the peoples of the earth. Missions is not that goal. It is the means. And for that reason it is the second greatest human activity in the world.

God’s Passion for God Is the Foundation for Ours

One of the things God uses to make this truth take hold of a person and a church is the stunning realization that it is also true for God himself. Missions is not God’s ultimate goal, worship is. And when this sinks into a person’s heart everything changes. The world is often turned on its head. And everything looks different–including the missionary enterprise.

The ultimate foundation for our passion to see God glorified is his own passion to be glorified. God is central and supreme in his own affections. There are no rivals for the supremacy of God’s glory in his own heart. God is not an idolater. He does not disobey the first and great commandment. With all his heart and soul and strength and mind he delights in the glory of his manifold perfections. The most passionate heart for God in all the universe is God’s heart.

This truth, more than any other I know, seals the conviction that worship is the fuel and goal of missions. The deepest reason why our passion for God should fuel missions is that God’s passion for God fuels missions. Missions is the overflow of our delight in God because missions is the overflow of God’s delight in being God. And the deepest reason why worship is the goal in missions is that worship is God’s goal. We are confirmed in this goal by the Biblical record of God’s relentless pursuit of praise among the nations. “Praise the Lord, all nations! Extol him, all peoples!” (Psalm 117.1). If it is God’s goal it must be our goal.

The Chief End of God Is to Glorify God and Enjoy Himself For Ever

All my years of preaching and teaching on the supremacy of God in the heart of God have proved that this truth hits most people like a truck laden with unknown fruit. If they survive the impact, they discover that it is the most luscious fruit on the planet. I have unpacked this truth with lengthy arguments in other places. So here I will just give a brief overview of the Biblical basis. What I am claiming is that the answer to the first question of the Westminster Catechism is the same when asked concerning God as it is when asked concerning man. Question: “What is the chief end of man?” Answer: “The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy him for ever.” Question: “What is the chief end of God?” Answer: “The chief end of God is to glorify God and enjoy himself for ever.”

Another way to say it is simply, God is righteous. The opposite of righteousness is to value and enjoy what is not truly valuable or rewarding. This is why people are called unrighteous in Romans 1.18. They suppress the truth of God’s value and exchange God for created things. So they belittle God and discredit his worth. Righteousness is the opposite. It means recognizing true value for what it is and esteeming it and enjoying it in proportion to its true worth. The unrighteous in 2 Thessalonians 2.10 perish because they refuse to love the truth. The righteous, then, are those who welcome a love for the truth. Righteousness is recognizing and welcoming and loving and upholding what is truly valuable. God is righteous. This means that he recognizes, welcomes, loves and upholds with infinite jealousy and energy what is infinitely valuable, namely, the worth of God. God’s righteousness passion and delight is to display and uphold his infinitely valuable glory. This is not a vague theological conjecture. It flows inevitably from dozens of Biblical texts that show God in the relentless pursuit of praise and honor from creation to consummation.

Probably no text in the Bible reveals the passion of God for his own glory more clearly and bluntly than Isaiah 48.9-11 where God says,

“For my name’s sake I defer my anger, for the sake of my praise I restrain it for you, that I may not cut you off. Behold, I have refined you, but not like silver; I have tried you in the furnace of affliction. For my own sake, for my own sake, I do it, for how should my name be profaned? My glory I will not give to another.”

I have found that for many people these words come like six hammer blows to a man-centered way of looking at the world:

For my name’s sake! For the sake of my praise! For my own sake! For my own sake! How should my name be profaned? My glory I will not give to another!

What this text hammers home to us is the centrality of God in his own affections. The most passionate heart for the glorification of God is God’s heart. God’s ultimate goal is to uphold and display the glory of his name.

“For the Sake of His Name among All the Nations

Paul makes crystal clear in Romans 1.5 that his mission and calling are for the name of Christ among all the nations: “We have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all nations.”

The apostle John described the motive of early Christian missionaries in the same way. He wrote to tell one of his churches that they should send out Christian brothers in a manner “worthy of God.” And the reason he gives is that “they have gone out for the sake of his name, taking nothing from the Gentiles.” ( 3 John 6-7).

John Stott comments on these two texts (Romans 1:5; 3 John 7):

“They knew that God had superexalted Jesus, enthroning him at his right hand and bestowing upon him the highest rank, in order that every tongue should confess his lordship. They longed that Jesus should receive the honor due his name.”

This longing is not a dream but a certainty. at the bottom of all our hope, when everything else has given way, we stand on this great reality: the everlasting, all- sufficient God is infinitely, unwaveringly, and eternally committed to the glory of his great and holy name. For the sake of his fame among the nations he will act. His name will not be profaned forever. The mission of the church will be victorious. He will vindicate his people and his cause in all the earth.

The absence of [David] Brainerd‘s passion for God is the great cause of missionary weakness in the churches. This was Andrew Murray‘s judgement a hundred years ago:

“As we seek to find out why, with such millions of Christians, the real army of God that is fighting the hosts of darkness is so small, the only answer is–lack of heart. The enthusiasm of the kingdom is missing. And that is because there is so little enthusiasm for the King.”

The zeal of the church for the glory of her King will not rise until pastors and mission leaders and seminary teachers make much more of the King. When the glory of God himself saturates our preaching and teaching and conversation and writings, and when he predominates above our talk of methods and strategies and psychological buzz words and cultural trends, then the people might begin to feel that he is the central reality of their lives and that the spread of his glory is more important than all their possessions and all their plans.

The Call of God

God is calling us above all else to be the kind of people whose theme and passion is the supremacy of God in all of life. No one will be able to rise to the magnificence of the missionary cause who does not feel the magnificence of Christ. There will be no big world vision without a big God. There will be no passion to draw others into our worship where there is no passion for worship.

God is pursuing with omnipotent passion a worldwide purpose of gathering joyful worshipers for himself from every tribe and tongue and people and nation. He has an inexhaustible enthusiasm for the supremacy of his name among the nations. Therefore let us bring our affections into line with his, and, for the sake of his name, let us renounce the quest for worldly comforts, and join his global purpose. If we do this, God’s omnipotent commitment to his name will be over us like a banner, and we will not lose, in spite of many tribulations (Acts 9.16; Romans 8.35-39). Missions is not the ultimate goal of the church. Worship is. Missions exists because worship doesn’t. The Great Commission is first to delight yourself in the Lord (Psalm 37.4) . And then to declare, “Let the nations be glad and sing for joy!” (Psalm 67.4). In this way God will be glorified from beginning to end and worship will empower the missionary enterprise till the coming of the Lord.

Great and wonderful are your deeds, O Lord God the Almighty! Just and true are your ways, O King of the ages!  Who shall not fear and glorify your name, O Lord? For you alone are holy.   All nations shall come and worship you, for your judgments have been revealed.  –Revelation 15.3-4

 *******

This article is excerpted from the first chapter of John Piper’s book, Let the Nations Be Glad. This article also appeared in Mission Frontiers magazine from the U.S. Center for World Mission.

Odyssey of Church Outreach

/ Dennis Griffith / Leave a comment

Outreach and evangelism are among the most important responsibilites the Christian has to his/her community. They are also perhaps the most intimidating. 

A friend of mine, who is not a pastor, took over the the outreach ministry of his church. He was aware at the outset that this ministry was in need of an ovehaul.  During the ‘heydays’ in this congregation most of the growth occured through transfers from neighboring churches experiencing turbualnt times. The church had never really cultivated a healthy outreach/evangelism ministry.  And recently this church had itself just emerged from a prolonged period of conflict. Consequently, little effort had been made in a few years to reach out to the community. Mere survival and self-preservation had been the prevailing mindset.  But the dust having settled, many in the church had been developing a renewed interest in their missional responsibility.

One of the first things my friend did was to take an informal survey of other members of the congregation.  What he found was somewhat unexpected.  Many of the members expressed a genuine willingness to reach out to the community.  This part was as he suspected.  But what surprised him was the nearly universal sense of inadequacy that the church members felt.   They would be willing – even anxious – to reach out to their neighbors.  They just didn’t think they knew how.  So they had never taken any initiative.

I don’t think this is an uncommon problem.  I remember my own experience.  As a Junior at the University of Tennessee the director of Athlete’s in Action, Doug Pollock, was mentoring me.  He suggested it was time I learned to do evangelism.  The idea of actually introducing others to a vital relationship with Jesus was exciting.  But it was also overwhelming.  Consequently I was paralyzed by the thought.  (I learned, by coercion – which I don’t recommend. Eventually, though, I faced my fears and began more freely sharing my faith – with varying effectivenss.) 

I also remember reading about the amazing beginnings of the Calvary Chapel movement. In the early days the founder of the movement, Chuck Smith, faced a congregation laced with fear of evangelism. He recognized this as a very common issue in most churches, and for most Christians. He also thought about the approach most pastors – including himself – employed to combat the paralysis: Guilt.  But as he re-diagnosed the problem a different solution came to mind.  He realized that the primary problem most people experienced was not a lack of desire, but a lack of confidence.  Guilt would not remedy this problem, only compound it.  Instead he realized that outreach needed to be modeled and taught. Smith believed that when the people grew in confidence that they would neither dishonor God nor destroy friendships in the process, evangelism would become natural and common.  And he was right! 

KEY CONCEPTS

Two key concepts to remember concerning evangelism are Intellectual and Incarnational. 

Intellectual deals with the content of the faith, an awareness of people (including ones self), and to some degree an understanding of the methods employed.  (Methods may not be the best word, because it seems to connote a formula. That is not my intention. But I’ll elaborate on methods in another post, which I hope will bring some clarity.) All of these things are important for effective evangelsim.  It will likely take the average person a little work to develop a competent grasp of these things. But while the old saying is true: “nothing worth doing is easy”, these things are not as complicated as many seem to think.

Incarnation means “in the flesh”.  It is used uniquely of the person and ministry of Christ. But it is also applies appropriately, I believe, to the followers of Christ who are commissioned to carry on his work on earth.  Jesus himself said: “As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” (John 20.21) 

Jesus’ statement requires us to ask oursleves: “Just how did the Father send Jesus?”  When we understand the answer to that question we have a picture of what Jesus intends for his followers, his church.  And without trying to oversimplify the doctrine of the Incarnation, we must understand that fundamentally it means the Father sent Jesus “in the flesh”. (See Philippians 2.5-8, John 1.14). Or as Eugene Peterson wonderfully puts it: “The Word became flesh and blood and moved into the neighborhood.”

While it is important to recognize that Christ is unique in his Incarnation, and that there are aspects that cannot be replicated, it is also important to recognize that he has conferred an incarnational mandate upon his followers. We are commissioned to live and proclaim our faith in our neighborhoods.  Media may provide some helpful tools in the work of evangelism, but it is no substitute for living out our faith in the midst of both other believers and non-believers.  To do what Jesus commissioned us to do, to act as Jesus acted, we must “move out into the neighborhood”. We cannot stay behind the fortress-like doors of the church and simply invite select people to visit us there.

OBSTACLES

The two “I’s” – Intellect & Incarnation – are import, inseparable, and inconvertible.  Understanding these concepts is a good start. But we also need to be aware that there are obstacles that need to be addressed if we want to experience frutiful evangelism, and have effective outreach from our churches

In the couse of subsequent posts, I  will address six common obstacles that hinder Christians, and churches, from effectively

1. Lack of Understanding of the Gospel

2. Prayerlessness

3. People Blindness

4. Outdated Methods

5. Timidity

6. Motives

Sad Day in the PCUSA

/ Dennis Griffith / 4 Comments

We’ve seen it coming.  It has become more iminent with each turn of the calendar page.  But somehow, perhaps naively, I had hoped it would never arrive.  But at the 218th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church USA (not to be confused with the PCA) commissioners voted to strike the language from their constitution that reflects the Biblical prescritions regarding sexuality.  Now both sex outside the bonds of marriage and homosexuality are officially acceptable practices within the PCUSA. (see article.)

I don’t want to be prudish, nor the guardian of some past Victorian era.  My dismay is at the sheer rejection of Biblical authority.  I am hardpressed to understand how any group can call itself a Christian church, yet blatently disregard God’s Word. 

I am also a bit peeved because most of the country makes no distinction between the PCUSA and the PCA, of which I am a member.  To most people, and especially in the part of the country where I live, a Presbyterian is a Presbyterian.  Their action will tarnish the image of our church.

I am reticent to say this, but I think the time has come for the Christians to abandon the PCUSA.  If you are a member in the PCUSA it is time you asked the leadership in your congregation where they stand. If the church wants to stand on Biblical authority, then you need to urge them to leave the denomination – join those who are joining the EPC.  If your church will not start the process of leaving, then I think it’s time for you to leave that church. Why? Because if you are a Christian, your church has left you. And more important, the PCUSA has left Jesus.

A Team Approach to Effective Church Ministry

/ Dennis Griffith / 3 Comments

As a Presbyterian minister I am keenly familiar with committees.  While committees are a familiar staple in churches of almost any flavor, we Presbyterians especially like to have everything done ‘decently and in order’.  This makes the committee structure seem almost inherently appealing to our ecclesiastical DNA.  But to be honest, from time to time I find myself asking “Why do we need committees?”  Are there not any other options?

PORTRAIT of a COMMITTEE

Let me sketch a synical picture:

The old cliche’ seems all too true: “A committee is a group of people who take hours just to keep minutes.”

Let’s be honest. In most churches, some seem to equate frequent meetings with effective ministry.  Yet, in those same churches, others avoid serving on committees just so they don’t have to go to meetings. True?

The typical committee will gather on occasion to discuss some particular matter.  (Frequency of meetings vary, and is seems to be decided by how much the chairperson likes to attend meetings. Food to be consumed during the meeting is optional.)   Usually the meeting officially opens with some perfunctory prayer (not real worship or intercession), and is followed by a lot of chatter.

Committee members are not often experts about the subject they are discussing, nor necessarily even students of the related issues.  Nevertheless, there rarely  seems to be any lack of opinions.

There has to be a better way.

What if, in a particular church, each ministry simply had a director?  A director would be someone with a growing knowledge (expertise?) and who senses a passion for, and even a calling to, a particular ministry or work.  What if such a person were the one to set the direction & pace?  Would we still need to have committees?

OBJECTIONS

I know there are objections to such a notion. Among them might be:

1. People would not have a voice. They would feel no ownership, and therefore might not participate or support a ministry.

2. There is a need for a shared work load.

I’ve heard both, so let me take a moment to address these concerns.

1. People would not have a voice, and might not participate or support the ministry.

I suspect that this is probably true in some cases.  If the leadership of the church (in Presbyterian cirlces meaning the Session, or Elders) appointed a person or persons, but did not open it up to anyone who wanted to volunteer, there may be some objections. But where this is true I think it reflects a more fundamental problem than the presence or absence of a committee structure.

What does such an attitude say about the people and their respect for the leadership of the church?  In such situations, it seems to me, there is at least one of three issues undermining the overall health of the church: 1) the leadership may have a history of being inept; 2) more common, the people in the church have a seriously deficient view of the role of leadership; 3) and worst of all, people are sinfully rejecting the God-ordained leadership of the church.

The presence of any one of these conditions undermines the possibility of an effective ministry.  And these conditions reflect a far more serious problem than the lack of a committee, or even the lack of a ministry.  If leadership is rejected because of incompetence or a history of unqualified leaders, then the church must ask itslef why such leaders were ever elected, or allowed to be appointed, in the first place. If people are rejecting and rebelling against a qualified leadership that God has put in place in that church, then ultimately the people are acting against God himself.  In either case the church has sin that needs to be addressed. No structure will compensate.

Now, let’s assume that the problem is the unwillingness of the people – or the unwillingness of a visible small group of people – to follow the direction of godly leadership.  Do we really want to establish (or perpetuate) a committee system just to appease people in their sin? (NOTE: I am not saying that having a committee structure is sinful, just asking if appeasement is sufficient reason to operate that way.)

2. There is need for a shared workload.

This is a very valid point. Most ministry is too cumbersome to be accomplished alone.  This is especially true when the leader is employed in another vocation.  He/she has responsibilities to honor God through work in that field, and responsibilites to those who work with him/her at that business.  On top of that there are family priorities, not to mention service to the community.

Time is a precious commodity – and a limited one.  I suspect that is why so many Americans are willing to simply write a check. More money we can often find, but time is a little scarce.

Because of time limitations it would be difficult for most people to lead every aspect of a multi-facted ministry.  It would be even more difficult to develop the level of expertise in each area that would facilitate effecitveness.  The work load needs to be shared.

TEAM APPROACH vs. COMMITTEES

To me the TEAM approach seems to be a much better idea than traditional committees.  Committees may be very helpful when reviewing the work of someone or something. Different perspectives can enhance understanding and perceptions.  But this is not the same thing as getting something accomplished.

Teams are composed of a group of individuals with a shared commitment and shared goals.  Each member of any team has a specific position to play, a particular responsibility. The whole team depends upon each person to perform his/her job to be effective.  This requires that each person becomes an ‘expert’ or advanced ‘student’ of their respective position.

Each team may have one person who is the organizational leader, like a coach or captain. (This would be the Director I mentioned earlier.) But it takes every person on the team to know what they need to do and how to do it to succeed.  When each person does their job the team “wins”.

Now, what if we applied more TEAM concept than traditional committees to the ministries of our churches? A few things come to mind:

1. Effectiveness

Team members would be clear about what they were attempting to do, and how their efforts were contributing to the success of the whole; and ultimately to the advancement of God’s Kingdom.  No one would be on the team without a specific responsibility.  This is not always the case in the traditional committee structure.  Many times a committee is composed of a represntative sample from the congregation merely so every part of the church has a voice.  People do not always have specific ongoing spheres of responsibility. They have no particular area where they provide informed insight, only opinions.  Meetings can get bogged down trying to come to some consensus of opinion, rather than experienceing the synergy that occurs when each member performs a vital part.

2. Retention

The lack of clear responsibility and ineffectiveness are perhaps the two primary reasons people decline to serve on committees. No one wants to put in time and effort if they are unsure of what they are trying to accomplish, or if they see no accomplishment for their labors.  But if members have clear job descriptions and see thier work contributing to something bigger than themsleves, I suspect fewer people would resign from the various ministries of the church.

3. Unity

There is less room for division or conflict when each member knows his/her role and the role of the others.  And if conflict does arise it will be much easier for all to recognize the source.  Either, 1) someone is not doing his/her job, thus causing stress to other team members; or 2) someone is overstepping thier bounds, disrespecting or even hindering another team member is his/her responsibility.  (Should such a thing happen Matthew 18 & Galatians 6.1-2 can be applied to bring about reconciliation.)

4. Community

These teams provide an opportunity to develop relationships.  A shared task binds people together.  This would have to be intentional.  Team members are not only interdependent, but can offer themselves into voluntary accountability, much as is generally expected in small groups.  (Roberta Hestenes has written a short booklet about this called, Turning Committees Into Communities.)

Conclusion

Maybe it is merely a matter of semantics.  Maybe we simply need to raise the standard bar for our committees, rather than reinvent our structures.  But It seems to me that moving more toward this approach would produce more effectiveness in the work of the Kingdom. Maybe even more than that, as I look at some of the possible outcomes of such an approach, it might be an opportunity to better reflect the Kingdom within our churches.