This week as part of my research for my dissertation I have been reading two books by Alan J. Roxburgh. The first one that I read was The Missional Leader: Equipping Your Church to Reach a Changing World which he co-authored with Fred Romanuk. The second book is Introducing the Missional Church: What It Is, Why It Matters, How To Become One which he co-authored with M. Scott Boren.
It was the title of the first book that grabbed my attention and caused me to buy the book and subsequently the second one. The basic premise of both of these works is that the Christian Church has been operating on an attraction driven paradigm of ministry and church growth. I think this is one of the correct assumptions in the book. The thing most of our churches are most concerned with is "How do we get more people to come to our church?" The question is not entirely bad, but shows that there is a great disconnect when it comes to the missiology of many Christian congregations. The point of the Church has never been to draw a crowd. Though Jesus drew crowds everywhere that He went, He never instructed the apostles or His Church to make that mission. The point of the Church since its founding has always been to proclaim the good news that Jesus Christ came, lived, died, and rose again so that all people could have new life if they trusted in Him. Reconciling people to God has always been the ordained assignment of the Church, NOT drawing a crowd.
Our world has radically changed and transformed itself over the past few decades. However, not much in most churches has changed. They are still operating in the same manner using the same program, singing the same songs that they have been using since the 1950s. Most of our churches are still very comfortable with the 1950s which is exactly why there are not many people in them born after the 1970s. However, the answer is not new programs, a new pastor, but rather a new perspective. These two Roxburgh works lay a groundwork for what they term "Missional Change Model." This is a whole new way of thinking in which the local church seeks to become a local expression of its community. In both works the authors argue that God is working through the ordinary, common experiences of ordinary everday people. To that I say a hearty "Amen!"
While there are some good things about that, we must understand that there are some shortcomings that go along with it. We must fully understand as the Church that the message does NOT change EVER, but our methods can, and I dare say MUST change OFTEN. In my opinion the shortcoming of Roxburgh's works are in their omissions. I wholeheartedly agree that a paradigm shift needs to happen within many local congregations if they are to be the people and church God intends for them to be. Far too many of us have been so self absorbed and self interested that we have not only ignored God in our "doing" of church, but we have also ignored and neglected the community that God has placed us in to transform. However as I read these two works there were two glaring ommissions.
First, Roxburgh and his co-authors argue that congregational change and transformation is a "grass roots" effort that is brought about by the congregation through their attentive listening to their unsaved neighbors and seeing where God might be at work in their lives and in the life of the community. While I agree that the people of a church certainly do have a role to play in being a transformative community, this transormation is not grass roots, but rather Jesus rooted. The transformation that must take place can not occur by personal effort, but only by the transforming power of Jesus Christ Himself. Rather than catering to the whims of the people of the congregation and the people of the neighborhoods, the Church must attend to the direction and mandates of Christ, the Head of the Church. Christ still speaks today. As Al Mohler proclaims in a recent book, "He is NOT Silent!"
Also downplayed in the model presented is the role of the pastor and preaching in bringing about transformation. While Roxburgh does write that Scripture plays an important part in the process of transformation, he leaves it up to the people to decide for themselves how God is working and how the biblical narrative shows what God is up to. Certainly Scripture is applicable to us today. It is the very living Word of the Almighty! However, it cannot say what we want it to say. It also often does not speak to what is but rather what should be in the lives of the Church. God has always used the preaching of His Word to bring about transformation. As God's people sit under the sound, exegetical preaching of the Bible, they are transformed as God's Spirit brings conviction, admonition, and enpowerment. It is not merely enough to reach people where they live -- to show that the Church is relevant to the lives of the community. Scripture must be shared and allowed to penetrate the hearts of those in the church and the community at large in order for transformation to occur on any level.
It was the title of the first book that grabbed my attention and caused me to buy the book and subsequently the second one. The basic premise of both of these works is that the Christian Church has been operating on an attraction driven paradigm of ministry and church growth. I think this is one of the correct assumptions in the book. The thing most of our churches are most concerned with is "How do we get more people to come to our church?" The question is not entirely bad, but shows that there is a great disconnect when it comes to the missiology of many Christian congregations. The point of the Church has never been to draw a crowd. Though Jesus drew crowds everywhere that He went, He never instructed the apostles or His Church to make that mission. The point of the Church since its founding has always been to proclaim the good news that Jesus Christ came, lived, died, and rose again so that all people could have new life if they trusted in Him. Reconciling people to God has always been the ordained assignment of the Church, NOT drawing a crowd.
Our world has radically changed and transformed itself over the past few decades. However, not much in most churches has changed. They are still operating in the same manner using the same program, singing the same songs that they have been using since the 1950s. Most of our churches are still very comfortable with the 1950s which is exactly why there are not many people in them born after the 1970s. However, the answer is not new programs, a new pastor, but rather a new perspective. These two Roxburgh works lay a groundwork for what they term "Missional Change Model." This is a whole new way of thinking in which the local church seeks to become a local expression of its community. In both works the authors argue that God is working through the ordinary, common experiences of ordinary everday people. To that I say a hearty "Amen!"
While there are some good things about that, we must understand that there are some shortcomings that go along with it. We must fully understand as the Church that the message does NOT change EVER, but our methods can, and I dare say MUST change OFTEN. In my opinion the shortcoming of Roxburgh's works are in their omissions. I wholeheartedly agree that a paradigm shift needs to happen within many local congregations if they are to be the people and church God intends for them to be. Far too many of us have been so self absorbed and self interested that we have not only ignored God in our "doing" of church, but we have also ignored and neglected the community that God has placed us in to transform. However as I read these two works there were two glaring ommissions.
First, Roxburgh and his co-authors argue that congregational change and transformation is a "grass roots" effort that is brought about by the congregation through their attentive listening to their unsaved neighbors and seeing where God might be at work in their lives and in the life of the community. While I agree that the people of a church certainly do have a role to play in being a transformative community, this transormation is not grass roots, but rather Jesus rooted. The transformation that must take place can not occur by personal effort, but only by the transforming power of Jesus Christ Himself. Rather than catering to the whims of the people of the congregation and the people of the neighborhoods, the Church must attend to the direction and mandates of Christ, the Head of the Church. Christ still speaks today. As Al Mohler proclaims in a recent book, "He is NOT Silent!"
Also downplayed in the model presented is the role of the pastor and preaching in bringing about transformation. While Roxburgh does write that Scripture plays an important part in the process of transformation, he leaves it up to the people to decide for themselves how God is working and how the biblical narrative shows what God is up to. Certainly Scripture is applicable to us today. It is the very living Word of the Almighty! However, it cannot say what we want it to say. It also often does not speak to what is but rather what should be in the lives of the Church. God has always used the preaching of His Word to bring about transformation. As God's people sit under the sound, exegetical preaching of the Bible, they are transformed as God's Spirit brings conviction, admonition, and enpowerment. It is not merely enough to reach people where they live -- to show that the Church is relevant to the lives of the community. Scripture must be shared and allowed to penetrate the hearts of those in the church and the community at large in order for transformation to occur on any level.
3 comments:
You are right on target. One of the big problems with the churches today is that they are trying to be like the world (nieghborhood). While as you pointed out change is sometimes necessary the church MUST stand on scripture and scriptues never changes. Our mission as Christians is to bring the changing power of Jesus to the community by presenting the gospel as you have stated. Great work!
Aaron, you are indeed right about what the role of the church is. The church being the people, not the building. Let's look at just one of the problem that not enough people can cause. If the church building is open and functioning then there has to be money. If there isn't enough people giving enough money then bills, salaries, etc., aren't paid, then there goes the sharing of the gospel with the people in the area. To be effective in our witness to the neighborhood, we have to look at the entire process as a whole.
Just sayin'
Very good points!
Post a Comment