the running reverend

The influence of corporate American on the Western Church is undeniable. Churches have often embraced the leadership structures of corporate America. Similarly, churches have borrowed the language and terminology of corporate America (e.g. churches have “executive pastors,” “boards,” “committees,” and “chief financial officers” just to name a few).

The purpose of this post is not to deride the church’s often uncritical acceptance of said structures and terminologies. Plenty of ink and ample amounts of cyberspace have been employed to this end, so there is no point in doing so yet again.

Instead, I wish to explore a single and often discussed topic: the mission statement.

The mission statement declares the purpose of a company and/or organization. As such, it provides much-needed guidance by: declaring the organization’s reason for existence; clarifying its values; and setting parameters that guide the organization’s actions.

Mission statements are good and they are necessary. They are instructive in that they declare the identity and purpose of the organization.

What I would like to suggest, however, is that mission statements may be far too narrow and restrictive. They are static rather than fluid, and as such limit the number of ways that those within the organization might carry out the organization’s mission.

For example, our church’s current mission statement is, “The Mount Union Wesleyan Church Exists to EXALT Jesus Christ by EVANGELIZING the lost, DISCIPLING believers, EQUIPPING the church, and MINISTERING to society.”

The mission statement as it currently stands is both enormous and confining. Our task is so big and all encompassing that it is difficult to determine missional success. Yet, it is confining and encourages narrow thinking in that it, in many respects, assumes that there is a prescribed way of doing these things.

A better alternative, both in terms of organization health and vitality and individual creativity, may be a mission question.

An example of a mission question would be: What are we doing to effectively minister to society?

Both the mission statement and mission question have a similar end in mind, i.e., ministering to society. The question, however, encourages creativity. It begs both the organization and the individual to creatively formulate an answer. As such, it encourages and fosters participation. The statement, by contrast, says, “This is what we are about. This is what you are to do. Now let’s do it!” Neither the individual nor the organization is encouraged to creatively envision what their involvement toward that end might look like and/or entail.