For Christmas my in-laws purchased a treadmill for Crystal and I. (Don’t worry, it was a welcome gift, and not one of those awkward, “You REALLY need to exercise gifts.”) Because they originally intended to purchase furniture for us, we did not actually receive the treadmill until earlier this week.

All of this to say, it has been a while since I have run on a treadmill. (Let alone, run with any degree of seriousness.)

That pretty much prefaces and, to some degree, explains the following pictures…

See the full gallery on Posterous

The answer, I’m afraid, is rather simple: I forgot that running on a treadmill is significantly different than running in the out-of-doors. A subtle, but important difference, is that on a treadmill the ground is moving beneath your feet; whereas, when you run outside, this is NOT the case.

Not accounting for this small, but significant difference, I continued to increase my speed until I reached 9mph. For a little over a half-mile, I kept the pace. In fact, when the incident accident occurred, I my legs were keeping up with the pace just fine.

I feel and sustained the aforepictured injuries because I wanted to keep my pace, but wanted to feel more settled in it. I wanted to have rhythm, to allow each stride to seem natural. And, at the time, everything felt disjointed.

At that juncture, I decided to do what I’ve done hundreds of times before (outside). I closed my eyes and attempted to allow my mind, lungs, and feet syncronise.

Three steps with my eyes closed and I could feel the rhythm coming.

Before I could take that fourth step, however, I found my lower body being hurled backward and my face quickly approaching the rapidly moving belt of the treadmill.

Enter said injuries.

What does this have to do with the church?

The church (at least the church in North America) has enjoyed a rather long tenure as a revered institution at the center of society.

Listening to my grandparents talk, images of a Rockwellian society are easily conjured up by one’s mind. Days in which the family that prayed together stayed together. A time in which families and entire communities would be found at church together on Sunday morning. A point in history where it was considered unpatriotic not to attend church, pray for one’s country, and give thanks to God for being part of the greatest country in the history of the world. Civil religion and personal piety coalesce, in my grandparents’ telling, to create the ideal America — one with the church and Christianity at the center.

My parents weren’t nearly as fortunate. They were part of a generation in upheaval. Throughout the tumultuous seasons of their lives, the church served as a grounding point. It was a place to which they, and many of their generation, would return when the chaos and tumult of life became unbearable. If nothing else, the church remained a place where one came to be married and buried, to dedicate and/or baptize one’s child, etc.

Not so today.

The relative stasis of American culture (I use the distinction “relative” merely to delineate between the slow rate of cultural change and the now-rapidly occuring cultural shifts) allowed the church to exist, function, and minister in much the same fashion. 

With the advent of the internet, the almost instantaneous dissemination of information, a global economy, and a computer (in the form of a smartphone) in many a pocket culture changes at an exponential rate.

Culture, much like the belt of the treadmill that I toppled off, is moving rather rapidly.

The church, however, likes to approach the fast moving culture in much the same way that I approached the fast moving belt of the treadmill. Just as I erroneously assumed that running is running, regardless of whether one is running outdoors or on a treadmill; she often assumes that ministry is ministry. 

In fact, many a church has closed their eyes hoping to once again find their tried and true ministry rhythm only to open their eyes to find themselves standing outside of a church building whose doors have been locked and whose congregants have been transplanted into other churches, which are also hoping (often with their eyes closed tightly, as wll) to once again find their rhythm before they become but a fond memory in a family photo album.

That being said, should the church be in a constant state of flux — surfing, if you will, the ever-changing tides of culture? Or should the church stand boldly and declare her unwillingness (and inability?) to change? Or is it imperative that the church strike a balance between being a static and constantly in flux?

I’d love to hear your thoughts. What do you think?

Earlier this month, Mike Breen (of 3DM) wrote a blog post in which he asks: Is the church (and are we as leaders) sacrificing mission on the altar of family? (You can read the Mike’s post here.)

I think Mike makes some important points. For instance:

• The tendency to compartmentalize our lives into mission (ministry) and family is largely a reaction to a ministry paradigm in which family was sacrificed in the name of mission/ministry. I’m reminded of one of the pastors who preceded in ministry at my first place of ministry. He was a phenomenal man who had a deep care for people. His compassion led him to cancel family vacations and spend most evenings away from the home and his family. He did ministry and his family was the casualty of his ministry. (He also set an example that subsequent pastors could never live up to, which caused further issues.)
• We often treat family and mission as two opposing things that must be juggled. Let’s face it, the church often doesn’t help in this regard. Far too often, the church takes families and divides them up as they seek to pursue mission. When we gather for worship often the children are sent downstairs for “children’s church,” while the adults remain upstairs for “church.” Similarly, our youth go on youth group mission trips, while the adults go on adult trips. In doing so, we force people to choose between family and mission. How will they balance these two important aspects of their lives, while not giving up one at the expense of the other?
• Integration (what Mike terms “family ON mission”) seems to provide a much better, and far less reactionary, paradigm.

What do you think? Is Mike’s thesis plausible? What are its shortcomings?

In all fairness this picture is of a “Life Group,” not a missional church or community. Yet, the picture stuck out to me. Here’s why: I had the opportunity to attend a gathering of a newly established missional community a week or so ago. The community gathered in a coffee shop, which was set up much like the space in the photo. The gathering time consisted of people arriving; purchasing food; assuming a place at a table; socializing; agreeing in prayer as an invocation was given; listening to a homily; participating in discussion regarding the homily/text and its application for one’s life; table communion; and dismissal by benediction.

I enjoyed the gathering. As someone who doesn’t particularly enjoying a great deal of modern worship music and who would rather thoughtfully ruminate on the words, it was perfectly fine with me that we didn’t sing. Also, I thoroughly enjoyed the fellowship, the opportunity to get to know and enter into fairly deep conversation with people that I just met. I felt very welcome and included.

However, there wasn’t anything inherently missional about the gathering (or this group). They meet in a coffee shop on a weekly basis and in one another’s homes throughout the week. They do church and/or life together outside of the four walls of the American church building (which I think is great). But the mission that drives this community and their meetings isn’t really that different from most of the churches that gather together inside the four walls of the American church building week after week.

They assumed that because they were a small group that met in a coffee shop and whose leader didn’t use the term pastor to describe himself that they were on mission, living into the mission field that God had placed before them. In reality, they were a group of friends who really enjoy one another’s company and share an affinity for a particular style of worship service.

Mission-mindedness for this group entailed showing up at a coffee shop, putting out a sign with their church name on it, and caring for the needs of those who already attend. In that respect, this “small, intentional, missional community” is no different that many of the churches that dot the religious landscape of North America.

They are resolute that they are missional because they are small. Thus, they are the opposite of the mega-church that had been criticized for employing business models of leadership and parlor tricks to attract people. (I know because a little less than five years ago I felt the same way.)

But smallness does not necessarily equate to mission-mindedness. Nor does largeness mean that a church has sold its sole to consumerism and the latest marketing fad. I reality, there are plenty of small churches who have no clue as to what their mission is and/or whether they are fulfilling said mission. Likewise, there are plenty of mega-churches who have a clear sense of mission and are ruthlessly pursuing it to the glory of God and the benefit of His kingdom.

How does ministry (best) take place?

I’ve been asking that question a lot lately, and here’s what I have come up with. (Please bear with me, as these are unrefined thoughts that have not yet been bounced off of anyone.)

There are many ministry paradigms (probably as many paradigms as you have ministers). However, there are a handful of paradigms under which we might classify these other, slightly nuanced, paradigms. The big three are:

1. Ministry to…

I suspect that this is by far the most common ministry paradigm. It’s the one that I grew up hearing about as a kid and it is the one that characterized my understanding of ministry early on.

This approach to ministry takes place when and where there is an inequality present in the relationship. For example, for decades the pastor has been seen as the expert on all things spiritual. I remember the first time that I received a phone call at my office from someone who was having a conversation with a friend about Jesus. They had their friend at “the point of decision,” and didn’t know what to do. So they called, asked if I could come over, pray a prayer with this person, and introduce them to Jesus and the Christian life.

Now I look back and shake my head, because it pains me to think that someone thought that they were incapable of introducing one friend to another.

Ministry to occurs when there is an inequality with regards to the relationship. The inequality may be based on any number of socio-economic factors, sexuality, etc. But there is an inequality, even if it is only a perceived one (e.g. The pastor knows more than me, so let’s take so-and-so to see her so that she can lead him to Jesus).

2. Ministry with…

In many respects this is but a variation and nuance of #1. However, I think that there is enough distinction to merit treating it as its own paradigm.

In the “ministry with” paradigm you hear things like: “Will you go minister with me to those who are less fortunate.” What does that mean? Does it mean that those who eat at the soup kitchen are “less fortunate” than all of the rest of the world’s population? Does it mean that they are less fortunate than those who died of hunger today? Of course not! They are less fortunate than those who are coming from their nice suburban homes, to gather at their cozy suburban churches, and will be driving to the soup kitchen in their well-kept sedans and minivans.

This paradigm characterized some of the most fruitful and enjoyable years of ministry. In this paradigm people participate, ministry gets done, and friendships are kindled.

The friendships that are developed, however, are between those who are alike as they minister to those who are different. Ministry according to this paradigm remains something that a group with power, education, money, etc. does to those who do not have such things. As such it is ministry rooted in inequality.

3. Ministry as being in community with…

Being in community with others is messy. It requires give and take and a willingness to forgive among other things. By far one of the most beautiful aspects of being in community with people is the decision to accept them for who they are.

This ministry paradigm requires that one has a fundamentally different understanding of ministry. Whereas the two previous views assume that ministry is something that is done by someone, or by a group of someones, who have knowledge about Jesus that needs to be shared with others — a view that suggests that God is not at work in a person’s life until the already-convinced, saved, or whatever other term one wishes to employ brings the good news to the pagan. The ministry as being in community with paradigm, however, operates from the assumption that God is already at work in the world and within each person. Thus ministry involves building relationship, living in community with, and accepting the other with the expressed hope of discovering where God is already at work and helping others to recognize that work. Interestingly, what I have found is that this sort of ministry paradigm puts me, “the minister,” in the place of also being ministered to.

What do you think?

As I mentioned at the beginning, these thoughts are in many respects “unrefined.” They’ve been bouncing around in my mind and have been discussed to greater and lesser degrees in a handful of conversations, but they are thoughts that are in need of further refinement. To that end, I’d like to ask: What do you think? What do you agree with? Where would you push back? What would you add? What would you change/subtract?

Our institutions are out of date; the long career is dead; any quest for solid rules is pointless, since we will be constantly rethinking them; you can’t rely on an established business model or a corporate ladder to point your way; silos between industries are breaking down; anything settled is vulnerable. [1]

So writes Robert Safian in the article, “This Generation is Flux: Meet the Pioneers of the New (And Chaotic) Frontier of Business,” found in the most recent edition of Fast Company.

While I have often been skeptical (even critical) of plying business techniques, practices, and models in ministry, I found myself rereading and pondering this article (which can be accessed by clicking here). In the article Safian makes many points of note. Here are just a few:

• The pace of change in our economy and our culture is accelerating—fueled by global adoption of social, mobile, and other new technologies—and our visibility about the future is declining. [2]

• The next decade or two will be defined more by fluidity than by any new, settled paradigm; if there is a pattern to all this, it is that there is no pattern. [3]

• The new reality is multiple gigs, some of them supershort, with constant pressure to learn new things and adapt to new work situations, and no guarantee that you’ll stay in a single industry. [4]

• Future-focus is a signature trait of Generation Flux. [5]

• In a world of flux, what succeeds for one industry or company doesn’t necessarily work for another; and even if it does, it may not work for long. [6]

What does this have to do with the church? How might this apply to the church? Here are just a few thoughts…

Education

Bible colleges and seminaries have long served as the training institutions for clergy. While the church has undoubtedly benefited from the specialized and focused training provided by these institutions (and while I have personally benefited from education at a private Christian college and an excellent seminary), there are limitations to this model of training/education. Namely, clergy often graduate from the hallowed halls of these institutions with a rather narrow knowledge base and a limited (and not very marketable) skill set. Consequently, pastors vie with one another for positions at churches that can afford full-time pastors and pastoral staff, or can provide the hope that they will be able to do so in the near future.

Pastors aren’t the only casualties of this system, however. The small local church and the church that is yet-to-be-born are also victimized. Because the well-educated pastor has student debt, a family, and the necessities of life to tend to many pastors are unable or unwilling to minister in small churches or as a church planter.

Those that are able or willing to give it a try regularly encounter another challenge: ministering bi-vocationally. In many respects, bi-vocational ministry is ideal in that it keeps the pastor grounded in reality and allows him/her to develop meaningful connections with those who are outside of the church. Connections with the wider community can occur naturally, through the ordinary ebbs and flows of work and life. But, where does a pastor work? What skills and training does he or she bring to the table? Bible colleges and seminaries, while providing invaluable education in ancient languages and biblical exegesis, don’t often teach pastors-to-be how to weld, do graphic design, copy-edit, develop a business plan and start a business, etc. Thus, the bi-vocational pastor often has to work a job that does not provide a living wage, requiring them to work two or three jobs in addition to pastoring part-time (while in actuality putting in full-time hours). The weary, beleaguered, and indebted pastor then (on many occasions) burns out or leaves for the greener pastures of full-time ministry.

I would suggest, therefore, that the pastors of the church of the future will need to possess a diverse skill set. Biblical knowledge, the ability to exegete a passage, and pastoral counseling skills will need of be supplemented with knowledge and skills that will allow them to gig just as effectively (if not more so) as their non-ministerial counterparts. Colleges and seminaries will need to adjust to meet this growing demand.

Additionally, the debt load of those who are graduating into ministry will need to be reduced. The cost of education continues to skyrocket, yet financial compensation for pastors has not been able to keep pace. The problem in most instances is not with the local congregation. Many congregations, especially the small ones, are exceptionally generous and strive to provide for their pastors as best as they can (and often at great sacrifice). Rather, the problem lies with the denominations who require four years of college and a three or four year masters degree, yet do little to subsidize the education of their pastors. The result of this system is an increasing number of pastors who have loans spanning seven to eight years of educational costs at $20-30k per year.

Many pastors have seven to eight years of college and graduate education, but still make far less than someone who has a four-year college degree.

I would suggest that the solution is not to be found in either forcing the churches to pay their pastors more (in many cases this isn’t possible), nor in dumbing down the required education. Instead, the solution is to be found in making education more affordable. Whether this means that a denomination digs deep into its coffers or that denominational schools find a way to lower the cost of education for future clergy (through the implementation of online programs or some other means), I do not really know. All that I know is that if the pastors graduating from Bible college and seminary did not have exorbitant amounts of student debt, they would be able to invest their time and energy into some churches and communities that might really benefit from their (undivided) attention and involvement.

Formation

The days of standardized curriculum and one-size-fits-all discipleship are over. The days when people would show up at 9:30 on a Sunday morning to become spiritually formed are all but over. (I write this as the pastor of a church that has roughly 2/3 of its congregation taking part I Sunday School.)

Sure, people can sit through our Sunday School classes, our four week discipleship small group meetings, and emerge on the other side with a great deal of information.

Where the church has often failed, as of late, is in teaching people how to think critically and biblically about life and life issues. Rather, we have taught people how to passively absorb information dispensed by a pastor/teacher/small group leader. They then take this information and regurgitate it as necessary.

Yet, for the most part, people remain unformed by the knowledge that they have.

In a culture that is changing rapidly, congregations need to be equipped to think on their feet. They need to be so formed by the Christian faith and a biblical imagination that they can navigate the often fluid and chaotic waters of social media, politics, and religious pluralism with grace and wisdom (and not the know-it-all attitude that so often accompanies the mere regurgitation of knowledge).

[1] Robert Safian, “This is Generation Flux,” in Fast Company (http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/162/generation-flux-future-of-business).

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.