If anyone misunderstood and thought that I was trying to spend time on the blame game, I want to clear that up! I was writing in response to other discussions, and in saying that blame was shared all around, I was intending by that to say “Let’s get on with it”! So, I cast my vote with you and others, too, in that regard

You used the term “conventional church”, and I like the sound of that. I have often used the term “institutional church”, but have found that term unnecessarily threatening to some. I may have to adopt your term there! Thanks.

steve

I too enjoy both the focus and the spirit of what you’re writing on your blog! And thanks for your encouragement today; the timing was a God-thing. As for the blame thing regarding conventional church and the failure of discipleship, let me cast my vote with those who want to move past blame to solutions.

I’ve spent too much time pointing fingers at the past when I should have had my nose to the wind trying to sniff out the Spirit’s direction and wisdom on this matter.

Also, I agree passionately with your comment about the inherent flaw in the system that is conventional church. I don’t believe that the solution is to simply keep doing church, only this time “really mean it!” I think there’s something more fundamental needed.

Look forward to more on this.

Shalom,
tp

You are too cool, dude!

But seriously, I think you hit on something that often comes into my mind, too, when you said:

There is a big world out there that needs Jesus, and they won’t be coming to my door looking for Him.

It is that idea that somehow we need to bring the world to the church that seems troublesome to me. I would propose that the idea behind the Great Commission is more along the lines of we should be the church to the world.

Note that I did not accidentally leave out the word “taking” or “bringing”. It’s not that we should be taking the church to the world. We need to be the church to the world.

Perhaps we’ll discuss this more at length in an upcoming post.

steve

I agree with you about the buzzword aspect of both missional and emerging. I have a tendency to use both words because they condense the larger meaning of what I’m trying to say.

In spite of my blog title I’m not sure that I would really be considered part of the emerging church. Emerging is descriptive for me in that it describes this point in my journey where I have left my former ideas of church and am in the process of developing a new understanding of church.

I have read some good articles describing missional at the website Friends of Missional. What it means to me personally is getting rid of the sacred/secular divide that I had and learning to recognize all of life as an opportunity to minister. It means that every moment is an opportunity to hear from the Holy Spirit about how I can serve others.

You’ve probably read enough of what I’ve written to know that all of my former ministry was very church-centered. It has been an eye-opening learning experience to reconsider ministry without a title, a congregation, or people who automatically call on you. There is a big world out there that needs Jesus, and they won’t be coming to my door looking for Him.

For me, it’s not about doing a mission trip or serving in a church program, it is about learning to live a life with eyes that are open to the need around me.

I know this seems a little off-topic from your post, but I spent many years trying to help develop mature disciples, and I can say that without an understanding of being missional it wasn’t very productive.

I just wanted to add that I really appreciate the respect that you and your commentors give to one another.

Exactly!! In the end, it doesn’t really matter who is to blame, as long as we seek Jesus and walk in Him.

Thanks, brother!

steve

If the Church would speak to those issues [of fragmented community, et al.], we might see change. But until we get a handle on them, nothing will get better.

I’m not sure those are the primary issues, but I do agree with you that those are important issues that come into play.

I actually have a hunch that whatever Jesus intended the Church to be is not dependent on a particular societal construct. However, I do see your point about how some societal aspects can definitely hinder what Jesus has called us to be. Maybe that’s what you’re getting at.

steve

I want to agree with you in saying that the church has not failed. I really do! All of my “evidence” is anecdotal, I admit. I’m not an expert, and I don’t have statistics. I just get this overall sense, especially here in America (and Dan does a good job at pointing out that the failure seems to be more visible in the West), that we end up with a “form of godliness”, but “deny its power”.

After reading the post at Cerulean Sanctum and your posts here, I think perhaps some generalizations are being made based on the short-comings of some.

And this may, in fact, be completely true. Maybe I just had a knack for being in bad churches! But the things that I have observed, and the conclusions I have reached have been from seeing the same things happen in church after church. Over my 37 years of life, I have been involved in 10 different churches in 4 different states and about 4 or 5 different “denominations” (some were independent, but hopefully you know what I mean). In some, I was merely a musician involved in the music. In others, I was a staff pastor (associate pastor in one and music pastor in others). Most of them, I left due to geographical moves (lest people get the wrong impression that I have just stormed out of church after church because “my needs” weren’t being met).

Maybe I’m painting with too broad a brush, but when I look back at all those experiences, there are some very strange common factors in all of them. From Bible churches to Independent Baptist to Southern Baptist to Pentecostal — with the exception of Bible version preferences and the use of the gift of tongues in services, not much was different in the overall scheme — it was the same package, different name.

My goal on this blog is not to continue to rehash the things I observed, but to say that I think there is something that can be learned there.

Gordon, you know by now how much I respect you, and how much I believe that you are doing a lot of things right. I believe that a lot of good can still happen in the institutional church. I just think there are some things that will continue to foster a lesser maturity level in people, regardless of how loving and caring and sincere the senior pastor is.

Having said all of that, I really don’t want to beat a dead horse on this. I don’t want people to read this blog over time and think that all I do is gripe about the institution! I do hope to continue to challenge people to think through why they do what they do, and explore the possibility that there might be even better ways (not just different programs!) to accomplish what we are all called to do.

And in that process, I welcome your disagreement!!

steve

Like I’ve mentioned before on Cerulean Sanctum, I think the problem is inherent in how the West lives out its social constructs. The Church is growing in countries that place a different set of values on community and work than we do. Our fragmented community and broken work practices are undercutting everything the Church is doing in the West, especially in America.

If the Church would speak to those issues, we might see change. But until we get a handle on them, nothing will get better.