Here in Missouri, our current bishop, Robert Schnase, has worked to adjust our vision of the Annual Conference. He has put the focus on "Growing, fruitful, vibrant congregations changing lives through Jesus Christ." The idea is that the Annual Conference exists to support and equip local churches, instead of local churches supporting centralized ministries of the AC. This way, the apportionments that we pay end up being poured back into our local congregations and communities. There have been at least three major shifts to align with this vision:
These shifts are made because the thinking is the local church is where disciples are primarily made (as opposed to the AC). There has been a constant refrain of the importance of strengthening local congregations while we seemingly cut back on AC operated properties and ministries. This has caused some of my friends, mostly clergy types, to suggest that we are becoming congregationalist. I strongly disagree. Here's some questions I have:
Historically, where were disciples made/formed in the Methodist Movement?
Often, I hear people say "according to ___________ (typically the Book of Discipline or some other authoritative document), the basic unit of the UMC is the Annual Conference." Does "basic unit" equate to "the primary locale where disciples are made"? Probably not. If we look at the history of the Methodist Movement, I don't even think it was the local church that was the primary place that disciples were made/formed. I would have to say it was an even smaller group of people: the small group, or the class meeting. It's in those smaller groups within a local congregation of 5, or 8 - 12 people where disciples were formed. And I'm not talking about our modern day Sunday School class that is so focused on curriculum or a book that they forget the Bible and Covenant Accountability for Following Jesus. I think if we're really honest, that's where disciples were and continue to be made because that's where the deeper relationships happen. We need our churches to have vital small groups (class meetings).
How much of The Connectional system has been inherited from prior to the Methodist Movement, and how much developed with the Methodist Movement?
Take a look at the beginning of our UM Book of Discipline. There's a historical documents section. I'm pretty sure that even a vote of General Conference cannot change it. We inherited it from the Anglican Tradition, who inherited it from previous Christian Tradition. Point being, there is a connectional system that existed prior to the UM Book of Discipline. In addition, the UM BoD has greatly expanded over the years as we have "fine tuned" our connectional system. We have developed a lot of baggage in addition to the stuff we inherited. We are currently in a time when we find The Connexion, as is, is unsustainable, but we seem unable to change it, as evidenced by the last GC and subsequent Judicial Council decisions. We have created an institution that protects itself to survive to a fault. I say all of this to ask: What is really important that we need to preserve? What are the essentials? What essentials take priority over others for a season? Maybe some of this connectional system needs to be trimmed down and drastically changed so that we can emphasize the original vision of The Methodist Movement. Maybe some of this connectional system needs a season of rest and we can come back to those things at another time if we really need them. If you want to defend The Connection, defend the essential portion of it: local churches. (keep reading)
Does a focus on having healthy local churches make us congregational?
Having healthy local churches is not antithetical to Connectionalism. In fact, it improves The Connection. Without healthy vital congregations, there would be no Connexion. Read that sentence again: Without healthy vital congregations, there would be no Connexion. There would be no need for an Annual Conference or any of its properties or ministries if there were no local churches. Healthy Vital Local Congregations are what enable us to have a strong AC, and in turn a stronger global church. By putting the focus there (on local churches), we are not weakening the connection, but strengthening it! One more time: Without healthy vital congregations, there would be no Connexion.
So What to Do?
To my friends worried about us becoming Congregational, how about you focus more on connecting with other churches. Most of us are so focused inward on our own congregations that we miss opportunities to be truly collaborative and do great things. I hear you worried about us becoming congregational, but that's not a polity concern for me. It's more of a state of mind concern. I think most of us are stuck inward on our own congregations. Many choose to not connect in deep meaningful collaborative impactful ways. I'm in a city with 9 UMCs. If we worked together, I think we could really make a huge impact in our community with our combined resources. But for the most part, we are all too busy, each with our own struggles for increased worship attendance (because that's what really counts, or at least, that's what gets counted). What if we conferenced more? Picked up the phone and checked on each other more? Met regularly for more than sharing stories, but for strategic planning too? Our communities need us to lead as a team and to combine our resources. This is the connection we really need. In my mind, too often we have a Connectional System in name and polity only, but we operate as congregationalist already. If we change our mindset to be truly lived-Connexion, then there's no worry about becoming Congregationalist. Because I guarantee, our polity isn't changing (at least not any time soon). Bottom line: Be Connectional. Healthy Congregations connecting together for the good of God's Kingdom in our communities, that's transformational.
In order to live, we have basic needs: food, water, shelter, air, etc. There's one on the list that gets neglected because we think we can go without it: LOVE.
Are You Sure Love Is Necessary?
When human beings are first created, God says, "It is not good for a human to be alone." (Genesis 2:18) And as great as dogs are as companions, God searched through all of the animals and found no suitable companion among them. So he made more humans, in God's own likeness, God formed man & woman. What is God's likeness? "God is love." God is Three-In-One, Trinity. Relationship. In that likeness, we human beings are made. The perfect image of that Love in the flesh is Jesus Christ. Jesus knew that we weren't made to live alone, but in love, so he gathered close friends, disciples and taught them to do the same. We need Love, God's Love. It is part of our God-given nature, the way we were originally created to be. Even though hunger, thirst, safety and oxygen often seem more urgent, what's the point of surviving if you don't have love?
Denzel Washington and The Apostle Paul
It went viral this past week, Denzel Washington's address to the graduates of Dillard University. In it, he gave some pretty good advice, but one thing in particular stood out to me:
In this text, tweet, twerk world that you've grown up in, remember that just because you're doing a lot more, doesn't mean you're getting a lot more done. - Denzel Washington, 2015
Most of us, stay pretty busy doing a lot of things, with little time to add much else. In one of the most quoted scriptures on the subject of Love, The Apostle Paul says something similar about doing things. All those things you do can be empty or meaningless:
Paul makes it clear that love is "the most excellent way" of living. In fact, living without it is no life at all.
First, I think we need to clarify what Love is. With the word "love," it is often a Princess Bride type of moment: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." Is it a feeling? Is it an action? Is it a belief or a thought? Are there different degrees of it: infatuation, attraction, etc.? In many ways, it is hard for all of us to conceive the same concept of love. We use the word a lot, but often, I'm not sure we are all saying the same thing.
In this particular instance, we are talking about the Greek word used in the new testament: AGAPE, God's love. It may at times look similar to other loves we see because romantic love and family/brotherly love have similar characteristics. There are two main passages of scripture I use to define love. One I've already partly quoted above: 1 Corinthians 13. In it, Paul defines what it looks like for the church to share God's love. It was a way to bring the church together in unity even though they all had different gifts/talents/abilities/roles/positions. Love is their higher calling, a deeper purpose and meaning.
The other is Jesus' words in John 15:13,
No one has greater love than to give up one’s life for one’s friends.
Not many of us get the chance to actually physically die for our friends. Some do, but not all. So I don't think Jesus wants us to go around looking for ways to die for each other, but he is giving us himself as an example. Our sacrifice of love is not one time on a cross in physical death, but daily taking up the cross to love generously. It is sacrificing our selfishness, and finding ways to live selflessly.
Because there is such a diverse understanding and implementation of the word "love," I wonder if in the church, we shouldn't use a special word to talk of Agape, God's Love. Let's call it, Grace.
I was born and raised United Methodist. If there is one word I hear used over and over again to describe God's love in Jesus Christ, it is Grace. In fact, when I was 10 years old, my grandmother had me memorize Ephesians 2:8-9, "For it is by grace you have been saved through faith, and not by works, so that no one may boast." Emphasizing reliance on Grace is great! But sometimes we get confused on what that means.
Sure, God's love is a free gift that you didn't, nor could you earn, but that doesn't mean you do nothing. Too often, that's what I see and hear. People claim God's love and grace as a "get out of hell free card," which it is not intended to be. One may sit waiting for God to do something, when it's perfectly within her/his means and ability to do something of their own (empowered by God's love). Or, one may keep doing harmful things, things they know aren't right, and claim grace saying, "God will forgive me." Yes, but you're making a mockery of God's love.
Grace Is Meant To Be Responded To
God's love, Grace, is intense. It is overwhelming. When Paul writes "Love is Patient," he's not just telling you to be patient and wait. He's inviting you to think about how Patient God is with you. All of your wandering (and wondering). All of your failures, your doubts, your brokenness, your fears, your lies, your mistakes. All of the things that you've done wrong, or have been done to you. Through all of it, God is patiently loving you with open arms. Longing for you to see His Grace. That is a patience that we can only hope to achieve in a lifetime. God longs to be your first love, THE love of all loves. Sure, you may not believe it, but God loves you anyway. You may have seen Christians fail at it, badly, but still God showers us with Grace and Love. As Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 13:8, "Love never fails." And the Psalmist many times says, "God's steadfast love endures forever." It is the one constant truth you can rely upon for eternity. That's why you need it so badly, and life without it is not much of a life at all.
This concept of love is overwhelming. It's more than an emotion or action or thought. It is all of that rolled together. It inspires crazy things (just Google "crazy things people do for love" and see the stories). Love inspired God to leave the perfection and power of heaven to become human like and me, just so there could be more love. Radical Love suspends our logical thinking, and I'm glad it did for God too. I have Life because of it.
Grace compels a response. Grace is not opposed to Effort. It is opposed to Earning. When you love someone, you show it. You show it whether or not they love you back. You show it, even if there is little chance of receiving it back. Do the same with Grace, God's love. It's not like you will run out. Love will even inspire you to love enemies (I think Jesus said something about that too).
Do The Right Things
Grace is not an excuse to not show effort. In fact, God's grace is so transformative, it should produce the most effort you've ever put into anything. You do a lot of things in the day. Some are substantial, others are trivial. Do they all lead to Love? Is your life busy, yet empty? Maybe you're missing the one thing you really need: Love. Let Grace grow in your heart and life. Let the knowledge of God's love in Christ Jesus overwhelm your being. Respond to it and show it. Let it increase more and more, not because you earned it, but because God's love never ends. Love first, then see what happens.
***One quick piece of information before I get started on this, if a child or youth or anybody in your church asks if there will be a camp for them this summer, 2015, please answer "Yes." We don't know exactly where it will be yet, but we will know soon. It will be different, but there will be something, and it will be great because I know the people like me who are committed to making it great.***
I'm not saying that anything has been hidden, or that we've been deceived. I'm saying this change in direction has more to do with combining Camping & Retreat Ministries with Youth Ministries (CCYM) into the new "Next Generation Ministries" than we may realize. So, a lot of the conversations leading up to this change were a part of aligning the conference ministries with the mission statement: "leading congregations to lead people to actively follow Jesus Christ." (side note: I've always thought the word "actively" was unnecessary or redundant because isn't following an action? can you passively or inactively follow? I think those would be "not following".) The impression that people seem to have is that this emphasis is just a Missouri Conference thing. It bothers a lot of us because it appears to make us more congregational in polity rather than connectional. For example, I've seen this post passed around on the interwebs, and it's titled "Disconnecting Missouri Methodism." The fear that we are becoming more congregational may be valid (I don't think so), but it's not a Missouri specific thing.
In addition to our mission statement, the Missouri Conference of the UMC has the following vision: "Growing, fruitful, vibrant congregations changing lives through Jesus Christ." This also puts an emphasis on local congregations, and seemingly away from our connectional nature and more towards congregationalism. However, this is not just a Missouri thing. It's a Council of Bishops and Connectional Table thing. It's a denomination thing.
A while back (2008), the Council of Bishops and The Connectional Table announced the "Four Areas of Focus." You can read an overview of it at the umc.org website. Among those four foci (is that how you pluralize that?) is...drum roll please..."Growing Vital Churches." Specifically, the focus is on planting NEW churches (actual wording is "new faith communities") and creating NEW ways for people to connect with God and The Church. But, they also include renewing existing churches. If you dig deeper and click the link to find out what they mean by "Growing Vital Churches," you will find more details for the vision of what exactly a vital church is. One of the components of a vital congregation is..."strong children's and youth ministries." (Note this as an emphasis on "Next Generation Ministries.")
What prompted this vision for our denomination? Why is there an emphasis on strengthening local congregations? Why emphasize children's and youth ministries? Here's what the website says:
as many of us realize, The United Methodist Church is aging, and our numbers are declining:
The vision of emphasizing these Four Areas of Focus is "not for the next quadrennium, but for as far as the eye can see." We will be living into this vision for many many years to come. I think it's a great vision for us to strive for wholeheartedly. (Personal Confession: In fact, I wish I would have paid more attention to our Bishop announcing this stuff and found all of the material on the website sooner.) In order for us to truly be connectional and accomplish this vision, we need Vital Congregations. Without vital congregations, we won't have a denomination to be connected to. The good news is, someone has done a lot of work to show us how to develop a vital congregation. The website has this PDF document that your church can use as a guide to implement what they call "drivers of vitality," which are things that help the church fulfill the vision of a "vital congregation." The first (of sixteen) drivers of vitality is focused on small groups for all ages. The next two are focused on Children's and Youth Ministries. So again, there is an emphasis on "Next Generation Ministries."
What Does This Have To Do With The Change To MO UM Camps?
I'm pointing all of this out because I want us to see that this is bigger than just the Missouri Conference, Bishop Schnase, Rev. Garrett Drake, and the Camping & Retreat Ministries Board. Sure, maybe the Missouri Conference is somewhat of a pioneer on shifting the focus to local congregations since this began for us prior to 2008, but still, this is not about people leading us away into congregationalism. This is about the future of The Church, our church, the United Methodist Church.
On the one hand, it looks like we've taken support away for Next Generation Ministries because first we closed our campus ministries, now we're closing campsites, and soon CCYM will be different. But in reality, we haven't had this type of concerted focused effort and alignment of resources to reach the next generation and form new communities of faith that reach the next generation. I give kudos to our Bishop for slowly (he's been here 10 years now) and persistently leading and influencing us to re-align our mission and vision and way of doing things (budget and staffing) to actually catalyze next generation ministries in our local churches. Did you see the stat above? The Average United Methodist Is 57 Years Old. Our conference leadership is being intentional about trying to change this. (And I am unique: one of only 850 people in the world who are under age 35 and ordained UMC clergy. Woo Hoo! Go me! Maybe if the process didn't take so long we'd have more, but that's a whole 'nother issue.)
These two emphases, vital congregations and next generation ministries, are critical for our church worldwide, and especially in the US. This vision is an effort to recapture the original Methodist Movement, not an institution. The Movement was always focused on small groups in local congregations who lived out their faith in their local communities. The local congregation (the people, not the building) is the primary locale that people connect with The Church.
To sum it up, I'm trying to say that this change is connected to more than just finances or ambitions. I'm trying to say that this is not us devolving into congregationalism. This is not denominational leadership sticking more to selfish ambition of growing a great organization. No, instead, this focus is deeply rooted in a desire to see us living as followers of Jesus Christ, disciples who care for the poor, lead our communities with integrity, and improve world health (historically Methodist emphases). We do this at the most basic level through our local congregations in communities, cities, towns, neighborhoods across the globe. People connect to people. The Church is people who connect people to the person of Christ. This vision is not necessarily trying to save a denomination, but it's trying to do the important work of continuing the Methodist way of Following Jesus Christ. Even if the denomination ever goes away, I think there will still be people who follow the Jesus Way in a Methodist Style, and I think these Four Areas of Focus capture that and it's well worth giving my life to...even if I won't get to use the same camp facility that I have grown to love.
A few months back, the Pastors Today blog with Thom Rainer had a post about risks pastors can and should take. It encouraged leaders to "play it safe" theologically because that is a risky thing to do these days. You can find the post by Eric McKiddie here. In it, he claims something that I've heard and felt before, that having conservative theology is the key to having a healthy growing church. Here's what Eric says:
We don’t need to guess whether maintaining a conservative theological position is best long term. Church history has played this saga out for us already, and has proven that the riskiest theological path is the one that veers left. One century later, look at the mainline denominations. One decade later, look at the emerging church. They took the risk that budging on the authority of God’s word would keep them relevant in our culture. They lost.
The argument is pretty convincing, and has been around for quite some time. It basically says, God blesses a church with numerical growth when they get their theology right. I'll be honest, I've gone along with that because it makes some sense. However, as I've continued to develop my thinking, I'm not sure it is totally correct. (What seems to be the key to church growth is an outward-focus toward the community, rather than an inward-focus.)
In fact, the way Mr. McKiddie has phrased things here is really offensive. I know of a number of churches that are growing that probably espouse a non-"conservative theological position." Honestly, the "safest" theological position to have is an "historically orthodox" position. It is left of conservative, but still not ultra-progressive. But that's not my point here.
The point is this, where is the ecumenical spirit? Where is the love of Christ? Aren't we one body of believers? Baptized in one spirit? One Lord? To say that some are winners and some are losers because of theological ideas is just ridiculous. What does the Lord require of us? To do justice and love mercy. It will take ALL of us to do and be that for a broken world. We need to quit saying "I'm better than you because my interpretation of the Bible is clearly better than yours." We need to come together working to show God's love in our communities.
Basically Eric, I see two things that you need to work on here. You needn't call out Mainliners and the Emerging Church as losers because of their theological stance. In fact, most of the mainliners and emerging church leaders I know are not trying to be "relevant in our culture," instead they are trying to be authentically faithful to their core convictions and values. Things that they think the Bible clearly teaches, just like you, Mr. McKiddie, stick to what you think the Bible clearly teaches. See, there's something in common with your "loser" brothers and sisters in Christ.
The other thing to work on is how we talk about the Bible, and what it clearly teaches. We all have different interpretations, and in its history, the Church has always had these discussions. That's a big reason why we had the Protestant Reformation. It's not going to be resolved any time soon. A good rule of thumb that was passed on to me from the Wesleyan tradition is: "in essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity." Now, we will probably argue over what is essential and what isn't. But in all of that we must have charity--Love. In fact, this is what scripture teaches us in 1 Corinthians. Paul responds to "divisions" in the church, and says "I will show you a more excellent way...LOVE." It's easy to say, harder to do. We need to quit fighting over the Bible and demonstrate the Love that it teaches.
Eric McKiddie, I don't know you, but I love you. Because you're my brother in Christ. And, overall, your article about pastors taking risk is pretty spot on. Risk is an important part of faith. Without risk, there is no faith. We must lead our churches to take risk. And I like to lead by example. I think the greatest risk we can take is to live the radical love of Jesus Christ in real ways in our communities. Fighting over biblical interpretation isn't going to help grow the church. Showing how much we love one another will.
Ok, I have another chart for you. The last one I stole from facebook.com/journeychurch.org but this time I just kept the layout and changed most of the words myself. I'm trying to highlight a key difference about how evangelism is viewed or done differently. I'm calling it Attractional vs. Relational Evangelism.
In the attractional model, it's all about getting people to come to you. In the relational model, it's about going to meet people where they are in ordinary life and living as a Christ follower. Attractional methodology works to draw a crowd as quick as possible and offer a product (give a sales pitch). Relational methodology takes an investment of time and friendship.
I'm not sure these are mutually exclusive. I think there is possibly a hybrid option here. BUT, I prefer the relational side. It makes sense. I've encountered Jesus Christ and that changes me and how I live. It should be natural that my relationship with Christ has an effect on all aspects of my life, especially all my other relationships. I do not draw myself out of culture, but I engage people through culture, at least the parts where my life intersects theirs.
Relational takes a long-term view of building a relationship. The aim is to populate the kingdom of heaven on earth, not simply fill pews. The Relational Evangelist (which every Christian should be) brings the kingdom of heaven to people where they are, much like Jesus is depicted doing in the Gospels. We work to bring to the world: peace, justice, beauty, creativity, love, blessing, health, reconciliation, forgiveness, redemption--the values/ideas/lifestyle of Jesus Christ, the kingdom of heaven. Relational methodology is about influencing the people around you by the way you live (as Christ).
The problem most of us "church people" face is that we "joined" a church and quit making new friends outside of church. We've disengaged. The way I've been taught to alleviate this problem as a leader is to have "bridge events" where we create space for "church people" to interact and build bridges with "non church people" (lack a good term for that). What if we took a different approach and used the events/activities that are already going on in our everyday ordinary lives?
For example, I recently convinced another church to open their gym for some time for men to play basketball. I saw it as a way to invite people and build relationships with guys I don't know well. It is working. That is happening. But now I feel like I have to pull a "bait-n-switch" tactic to get them to "come to church". A better way would probably have been to go join an already existing basketball league/program in my community. Then I could build relationships and live out my faith in noticeable ways that my new friends would want to investigate further.
A hybrid methodology is possible, but it is hard to avoid feeling a bit deceptive about a "bait-n-switch". The bridge event would need to have no hidden motive other than the stated good that the event does for the community. It would still provide a space for relational evangelists to mix and interact with "non church people" and begin building bridges and relationships. I consider this hybrid because you're still doing some marketing to get people to come to something instead of sending "church people" to go where "non church people" are and build relationships.
What do you think? Am I on target? Any adjustments that you would suggest?
This graphic captures exactly the transformation that I want the churches I lead to go through. This gives me lots of questions to answer:
How do I lead consumers who are so inundated with consumer culture to see church differently? We are so enveloped by consumerism, we don't even realize it. It is that pervasive here in the west as USAmericans. In fact, they way we typically describe the American Dream equivocates our ability to consume with success. So, how do I lead others to see things differently? It starts with me. Seek to consume less, and seek to serve/give more to/for/with God.
How does being Missional change the time that we gather together on Sunday mornings? If an hour or so on Sunday morning is no longer a religious service to be consumed, what drives what we do during that hour or so? In the past, it seems like the songs we sing were chosen largely in part because they were consumable for people. You could probably say something similar about the sermons that are preached. It was an effort to sell God to consumers for what God can do for them. This is so different from the attractional, worship-driven model of evangelism. Is an average attendance number a good indicator for church health? Yes, but is worship the doorway to the Christian life as it has been in the past? It is a good indicator because it means you have more people who are being sent on mission. It can still function as a doorway for some (and even many), but maybe not in the way we've seen in the past. Why do I say this? Because if we're not trying to put out a product for consumption, then are we going to invest so much in doing over-the-top performance type of stuff? Let's be honest, the church cannot compete with Hollywood and professional concert venues--although we've done fairly well in many churches across the country. AND, I just don't think we SHOULD be trying to compete with the professional entertainers because we're not trying to put out a product to be consumed. However, we are trying to communicate and help people experience an Awesome God who can do more than any high-tech entertainment could even dream of. So I'm not saying we abandon all technology and excellence and professionalism. I'm just saying our motivations are different for using it, which will probably change the way we use it. What does that look like? I think we create it as we go in the context we are in, so it will look different for each group of people that gathers. One of my fears with stating it that way, though, is how do we keep worship from devolving into a product to be consumed.
I think this graphic also indicates another shift (transformation) that needs to happen in the churches I lead. A movement away from programs, and a greater focus on people. I feel like we get so attached to our programs so much that we'll do anything to keep them going even though they're not reaching people. The example I've seen is Sunday School. Let me first say that I don't think Sunday School is inherently bad. People learning the bible and growing in their relationship with God is good. The problem is Sunday School has become an institution that we expect new people to be willing to jump into. I've heard church members complain and say, "I wish we had more people in Sunday School." Usually it's "I wish those young people would come to Sunday School." Those of you who are leaders of established churches with declining Sunday School know exactly what I'm talking about. Like I said, people growing in their relationship with God is a good thing. Let's find ways for people to be a part of a group where that happens in their context, whether or not it's a part of the institutional Sunday School--who cares? The important thing is people are growing in their faith and supporting one another in ways that they can't (or won't) in a large group of people.
My one last reflection on this for today is applying this to Holy Communion/Eucharist/The Lord's Supper (or whatever you call the sacrament with bread and wine). The way I've experienced this sacrament in the churches I've been a part of is very individualistic and consumery (yes, I made that word up). Most of the time, it seems like communion is focused on me getting right with God. I remember what God has done for me in Jesus Christ. I consume the gift God gives, and it is my individual transaction. How is the Sacrament of Bread & Wine different when being Sent on mission is emphasized? How is it more communal encouragement and still personal?
I've had more questions than answers, but it's discussion that we need to have.
At the end of October, one of the churches I serve held a Vision Workshop. We welcomed a guest presenter, to teach us and guide us in prayer. He helped us get a sense of what God is calling us to do and be in our local community. I was impressed by the conversations our church was having. One group of folks could see us reaching 770 people in the next 3-5 years, another group was more conservative at 300 people (which is still 3 times our regular attendance right now). I'm not sure even I fully understand the changes we'd need to undertake in order to get there from here, but it is always fun to dream and discern what God is calling us to.
Out of that workshop came several drafts of a vision statement. The first rough draft came from a group of about 6 of us. The many drafts after that were a product of my praying and thoughtful reflection. Through all of it, I saw a few areas of focus rise to the top:
"Our vision is to bring hope to our local community by building new relationships so that future generations will experience God and become followers of Jesus Christ."
What do you think? On one hand, it seems small compared to the great big God that we serve, on another hand, it's going to take a lot for our church to get there from here--nothing short of a miracle.
Then, I stumble upon a blog post by J.R. Miller that talks about Vision: http://www.morethancake.org/archives/1470. I like his reminder to focus on God as the leader and primary vision-caster for the church. It is easy to get dragged into a man-made business model of church. God's vision of a new creation is so much more compelling than having an organization full of people. Whether it's 770 people, 300, 150, or 5, all I really long for is to see The New Creation (Revelation 21 & 22) in my life and yours, and I want to be a part of God's activity, making The New Creation here in this time and place. So I guess this Vision Statement is simply an attempt to put into words what it would look like when our church is doing that--participating with God in The New Creation.
I am a Software Developer, a career shift made in 2018. So far, I have experience with C# .Net and Angular. I continue to let curiosity lead me into learning new technologies. I plan to share what I learn along the way about technology and personal/career life. Previously, my vocation was United Methodist pastor. So in addition to coding, I'll share about theology, the Church and The Bible. I also enjoy running, music, and I'm a deeply committed father and husband. Maybe my experiences will help you. I know it helps me to share.