Tuesday, February 9, 2010

Simply Profound

Steve Timmis via Twitter:

"Radical mission strategy - groups of people, indwelt by HS, loving God passionately, others sacrificially, commending Christ in word & deed.  I suspect it's too simple to really work but we could take a risk and give it a go. What have we got to lose?"

I'm pleased to say that this might mean we have to stop asking the "but what abouts" and endless "strategy" and talk of "vision" (that amounts to nothing more than talking about the term "vision").

5 comments:

  1. Your comment makes me chuckle as I just had a vision and strategy meeting this morning on making something like Total Church work.

    I hope we can agree with Timmis' statement (since he's British I guess it is Timmis's statement) but doesn't it still need feet to work? Wouldn't intentional discipleship, preaching, mentoring, theological boundaries and encouragements all be a part of the mix too? Or is this an area where a simple statement would suffice and the church will just catch on?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Todd! My first commenter on the new site.

    Prepare for a long, somewhat unedited response to your questions:

    You said you had a “vision and strategy meeting this morning on making something like Total Church work.”

    I mocked “vision” and “strategy”, but if it contextually makes sense to do it and use the phrases (especially at this point in your “traditional” church), then you need not be derogatory about the terms as I am ;o) … those terms/concepts may work to your advantage. It could become a splitting hairs thing, but Chester on his blog much prefers having a mission as opposed to developing a strategy (for me, it’s a heart issue – Jesus in charge rather than me, but I don’t think strategy is intrinsically evil).

    You said, “I hope we can agree with Timmis' statement (since he's British I guess it is Timmis's statement) but doesn't it still need feet to work? Wouldn't intentional discipleship, preaching, mentoring, theological boundaries and encouragements all be a part of the mix too? Or is this an area where a simple statement would suffice and the church will just catch on?”

    Great questions, and I’ll give tentative answers with the disclaimer that a.) I’m not an expert (did I really need that disclaimer with you?):

    First off, this guy has great ideas (IMHO): http://www.holidayatthesea.com/?p=2461

    continued ...

    ReplyDelete
  3. ... Absolutely needs feet in the form of “missional rhythms” as David Fitch puts it (see prior post link #4). This will incorporate meetings where you and others can do intentional discipleship, preaching, mentoring (but I’d qualify that some of the best preaching may be in the context of dialogue over the open Word – monologue preaching still has a role to play). I just finished reading “The Trellis and the Vine” where they do argue (correctly, IMHO) that even as the focus shifts to vine work, the trellis is still necessary. My small context (the small group – as my involvement in the “big” church is super-limited as our elders understand and bless) makes “The Trellis and the Vine” discussion STILL overly program driven, BUT for an-already-traditional church, it’s probably “baby-shifts” that may help.

    The baby-shifts/steps could take the form of small group pilot programs. I watched a few of the Verge Conference videos (live streamed) this weekend and thought Hugh Halter’s advice for established “traditional” churches to do pilot programs (small groups on mission in community) that the greater church body doesn’t even have to hear about was a great suggestion. The pilot programs allow a smaller group to take risks and not have to get buy-in from the “Big” church or church as a whole. So, what would that look like in reality. Pulling back from some programs that don’t fit being on mission/in community. Then modeling without telling that you’re modeling in a small group. Sounds’ like Hugh Halter’s church has a good guide for this (the Tangible Kingdom – sounds edge-ily-emergent, but I don’t think it is).

    Now I’m digressing a little. There needs to be structured programs, even in organic/simple/Total Church, too. It’s dishonest for organic/simple churchesto claim that organic doesn’t require structure. It requires different, stripped down structures, not an obliteration of structures. The point is, though, that it’s more of a shift, in thinking about church (and training to think about church) as more than the meetings. The ordinary life together is no less church – especially as the Gospel begins to be more and more present in conversation and activities.

    Re: “theological boundaries”. HAVE THEM! For the leaders – especially. BUT, the “Total Church” model is very inclusive, participatory and egalitarian in
    “feel”. This doesn’t mean that leadership/theologicial boundaries is not necessary, but that an empowering/servant leader will allow for a lot of “messes” when embracing a more every-member-participation/ministry model.

    I don’t think “a simple statement would suffice and the church will just catch on.” I don’t even think, as they say in church planting classes, that as long as you repeat your vision every X number of days/weeks/etc. that people will catch on. People will catch on only as they live life together and begin modeling it to each other. “It” being the Gospel-community-shared-ordinary-life-on-mission-together. Also, a vision for the “Total Church” model is what David Fitch calls for in #5 (prior linked post) – being committed to it long-term. Then as a leader, people don’t have to “get it” right away. It’s a blow to the good-communicator’s-ego to have it take time. There’s a felt pressure to make the new model work, when the point of the new model is organic, only-slightly-controlled (trellis) growth that will require a move of God’s Spirit.

    Further disclaimer: I have not worked all of this out in practice. It’s happening in small ways, and we haven’t had to cross many of the “what abouts” yet.

    That’s too much stuff. If you want to reply, no need to reply to all of it!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Good response B. In my brief reply, I agree the difference between man-centered and God-centered plans are huge, esp. in "vision." The lived out vs. communicating it every X days, is helpful as well.

    I'll come back to this later. Thanks for the thoughts.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I should mention that though I don't know your context (and assume your church is "traditional" in approach), I strongly admire you re: the "call" you've embraced and recall that you knew early on that your "call" was to a smaller-non-big-city-ish church and want to commend you (for what its worth) for following your calling. I also want to mention that "missional" in your context (much as in my context) won't really look very "edgy". But I love the fact that you are trying to impart a vision for community oriented ordinary life with Gospel intentionality (if that's what you mean by "making something like Total Church work"). I feel sometimes like my intense passion for the "Total Church" way of life and ministry can be critical of "traditional." I don't intend for it to be and hope you know that I'm not using "traditional" in a derogatory way (like those who watched the Methodists called them that in a derogatory way).

    I just saw a quote from Jonathan Dodson on Twitter that said: "Missional community is not a model it is a way of life" ...

    ReplyDelete