Tod Bolsinger

From the MGB Comm Observation Deck #3

In this third post from the MGB Comm Observation Deck, I want to make an observation about our church’s theological conversation.  It’s an observation about a technical term that is becoming both very helpful and at times quite frustrating.  It’s the word, “missional”. 

From the New Form of Government to the PCUSA Fellowship Letter, from the vision statement of almost every Presbytery to the video podcasts from our Stated Clerk, from Presbyterian Global Fellowship to the NEXT conference, everybody is talking about the church being “missional”.  But this is our third observation:

Missional is the “coin of the realm” but we don’t all agree on its “value.” 

To recap what we have observed from the “balcony” so far:

Observation #1: For Presbyterians, the Process IS the Product.
Observation #2:  Almost everybody agrees that something has to change.

And now, Observation #3: Missional is the “coin of the realm” but we don’t all agree on its “value.” 

While the idea of the “missional church” is very engaging and at the center of the church conversation in very interesting and inspiring ways, there is not widespread agreement on what “missional” means.  For some it is a way of saying “global mission” with a catchy new label. For others it is a way of saying something about “urban ministry” or “local mission” (instead of just writing checks to missionaries), for others it’s a reframe for service projects in local communities. For, still others, it seems like the newest fad or catchy theological trend. 

So while, we (mostly) all believe the church is to be missional, but we don’t all agree, or maybe even understand what we are saying by using the term. Indeed, a significant part of the “missional conversation” is a conversation about definition.   Since this is an observation, I won’t offer my own, but instead want to suggest two very basic “missional” concepts where I believe we do have (or at least should have) widespread agreement  And allow me to do so by way of quotation and stipulation.

First quotation:
“Mission determines the forms and structures needed for the church to do its work.” Nfog G-3.0106
 “The congregation is the church engaged in mission in its particular context…The congregation is the basic form of the church, but it is not of itself a sufficient form of the church.” Nfog G-1.0101

In a court of law, when two sides want to agree on a fact and move on to another point of contention, they make a stipulation. They concede one point to address another.  And in essence I want to ask:  Can we agree on these two points so that we may begin to move on to others that are in need of further consideration?

•    Mission determines structure.
•    The congregation is both primary to and insufficient for mission.

In one sense these points should be easy to agree upon.  They are from our New Form of Government and both express thoughts from the current Form of Government.  But before assuming that we are all in agreement (the Nfog is, of course, up for debate), I’d like to ask:

First, do we agree that MISSION, specifically, the Mission of the Triune God expressed for the whole world determines the forms and structures of the church? It’s first God’s mission, not ours.  It’s first God’s mission, not the church’s, not the denomination, not even the individual Christian.  The Mission of God revealed in Jesus Christ and empowered by the Holy Spirit to redeem and renew all of creation determines our structure.  Can we agree on that?  Do we also agree that when the MGB Commission considers “models” from Middle Governing bodies, the primary consideration should be whether the proposed structures further the Mission of the Triune God in the world today and not any political, personal, institutional, traditional, historical, organizational, economic or societal aim?  Can we stipulate this?

Second, do we agree that the congregation IS the basic form of mission, and thereby the basic form of church?  Do we agree that the congregation in its particular contexts is the foundational and primary place where the MISSION of GOD engages the need of the world?  The congregation (and not the denomination nor the individual) is the foundational, first line engagement of God to the world. 

Third, do we also agree at the very same time, that the congregation in and of itself is NOT sufficient as the church?  That in order to fulfill the mission of God, we need more than congregations?  We need forms and structures of SOME kind beyond the congregation. We need them to witness to the unity of the church, to engage in mission in ways that are beyond the scope or ability of a local congregation, for discernment, for learning, for leadership development and calling and perhaps a few other things that support and strengthen the mission of the congregation.

So, once again, here are the first two stipulations: What do you think?
•    Mission determines structure.
•    The congregation is both primary to and insufficient for mission.

Now, frankly, I want to caution us all not to agree too quickly (Oh, who am I kidding? We are Presbyterians.  We don’t agree quickly on anything!).  And this is where we need some good thoughtful theological critique. This is where I want to pause and take an extra moment or two.  Do we all realize what we would be stipulating?

• As I see it, we would be agreeing that any structure or form of church BEYOND the congregation must serve and further the mission of the congregation in a local, particular context.  The congregation does not serve the mission of the presbytery, the synod or the denomination, but the reverse.  Indeed, the mission of GOD in the world is discerned and expressed in and through the congregation.  And any structure that we use beyond the congregation must be understood by its value to the congregation.
• As I see it, we would also be agreeing that neither the denomination nor the individual is the basic expression of mission.  The local covenant community of Jesus-followers living as a witness in its context (however that is structured) is primary.  Now, to be sure, individual believers are called to live and serve the mission of Jesus. But the cornerstone of missional thinking is the primacy of the community as the agent of Christ’s mission for world. 
  
  Do we agree that the congregation does NOT exist for the “mission” of its individual members but that individual Christians and the denominational structures are called to live out their callings within a local context and as part of the body of Christ in mission together?  Can we agree on this, too? (This one may be more difficult for most of us, so steeped in the individualism of enlightenment modernity or expressive post-modernity….But I have written a bit about this before--shameless plug here.) 

Okay, another observation, two stipulations and hopefully a more robust conversation.  What do you think?

Billy Graham on Aging, Regrets, and Evangelicals | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction

CT: If you could, would you go back and do anything differently?

BG: Yes, of course. I'd spend more time at home with my family, and I'd study more and preach less. I wouldn't have taken so many speaking engagements, including some of the things I did over the years that I probably didn't really need to do—weddings and funerals and building dedications, things like that. Whenever I counsel someone who feels called to be an evangelist, I always urge them to guard their time and not feel like they have to do everything.

I also would have steered clear of politics. I'm grateful for the opportunities God gave me to minister to people in high places; people in power have spiritual and personal needs like everyone else, and often they have no one to talk to. But looking back I know I sometimes crossed the line, and I wouldn't do that now.

via www.christianitytoday.com

TEB: Worth any preacher's pondering... Less Preaching, less politics. More time with family, more time in the study. Wise advice from a respected sage.

My Church or Mega Church?

It seems to me that the mental models of churches fall roughly into two sets of aspirations:

1. “My Church”.  “My Church” is the church that fits us perfectly.  It is sweet and small and everybody knows me by name.  It’s “my” community, “my” house of prayer, these are “my” people.  We are not selfish with “My Church” indeed most of us are more than willing to have others come and be part of it…as long as it remains “My Church”.  My Church is quaint, peculiar and dated, it is hard to ever feel at home unless you already happen to be from there.  For those who do, it is long on community, love and belonging.  It offers tradition, stability and security comforting and confirming the experience of life of those on the inside.  It is filled with my favorite songs and traditions and ways of being church that fill “MY” heart and move my soul.  But it is so uniquely particular to the people who are part of it, that most of the time they don’t even notice that it is mostly ignored, mostly irrelevant and offers little to anyone outside of “me and mine.” “My Church” is a lot like my friends’ family cabin.  It’s cozy, it’s a bit in disrepair but it is filled with memories.  The furniture is old and awkward, the wallpaper is so dated as to inspire comment, the walls have “art” and artifacts that are sacrosanct because they were put there by someone beloved and long gone.   The appliances are relics but since they are not used that often are mostly fine for the task.  It’s not exactly the kind of place anyone else would care for, but for my friend and his family it is indeed “My Place”.  My Church is the same.  It’s loved because it is mine.  It may not fit anyone else, but really what matters to me is that it fits me.
2. The second mental model of church is “Mega Church”.  Mega church is the church that aspires to fit the masses. While inspired by churches that are genuinely big in size, “Mega Church” is mostly now an aspiration, a model, a way of doing church regardless of size. “Mega Church” is less about what fits me, as what would fit the most people most of the time in the most convenient way.  It is “user-friendly” or “purpose-driven” or “consumer-oriented”.  It is hip, up-to-date, and continually being remodeled to fit the demands of demanding customers. It is not exactly a place to be “at home” but more a place to “find what I am looking for”.  It mostly fits those who run the place, but in their anxiety to make sure it stays up to date it is in constant threat of pandering to whomever passes by.   “Mega Church” is more like a “mall” then a cabin, it is a big community gathering place where people come to get what they want.  Mega Church is not loved because it’s filled with memories, but because it is filled with energy.  It may not fit me, it may not really fit anyone perfectly, but it offers something for everyone (if only we can get them to “buy” into it.”

So, which church do you go to “My Church” or “Mega Church”? 

They are pretty different in the appearances they present and the experiences they offer.  Like all human institutions (no matter how divinely inspired and dutifully tended they have been) they both have attributes to commend them and they both have obvious shortcomings worthy of criticism. 
For all their differences, they both have at least two things in common: 

1.    Neither has the corner on a “biblical” (or “historical” or even “missional”) model. 
2.    And both are dying. 

We all know that “My Church” is in decline, it has been for a while.  Most of us who go to “My Church” have made an uneasy truce with the reality that this place really only fits me and my own, and when we are gone, it will be to.  Most of us who are members of “Mega Church” are less convinced.  We see the numbers of people and the energy pulsating from the next BIG event and assume that this model of church will be here for the next 500 years.  But it won’t.  Consumers are leaving “Mega Church” for a new hybrid version of both “My Church” and “Mega Church” called “No Church-except-My-Own-Do-it-Yourself Spirituality” (called the “Nones”, it the fastest growing church affiliation in America, often called “Spiritual But Not Religious”).

For  the past two decades or so, the tussle of these mental models has basically been around this assumption: To be relevant and to survive, “My Church” has to become more like “Mega Church”, but to endure and go deeper than the whims of a consumer culture, “Mega Church” has to become like “My Church”.  But what about a completely different model, a model that is as unique as each person and culture and as universal as life itself.  A model that offers both a sense of identity and belonging (for that is its true purpose) and a model that also continues to grow, change and adapt, for that very ability is in its “DNA”. 

Let me suggest a model from a most unlikely source; a model born out of the barrenness and emptiness, yearning and surprise that comes only when someone gets to the end of their abilities and finds themselves unexpectedly expecting.  It is a model with a “matron saint” (rather than a “patron saint”) and it is as unlikely to become a reality as Elizabeth was in Luke chapter 1. 
But the best thing about this model for church is that whether you go to “My Church” or “Mega Church” this model is actually pretty naturally, available for you and your church to consider:

It’s Mother Church. 

Mother church doesn’t exist to comfort “Me and Mine” nor does it exist to attract “Everyone”, it exists to both BE something in itself and Do something beyond itself.  It is a church that exists to BE generative and to give birth.  It is a church that’s purpose is to reproduce, to bring into the world the unexpected thing that God is already doing.

Next Post:  Elizabeth, Advent and A Church of Impossible Things.

Faith Amidst Trials: A Word of Encouragement for Church Leaders I Know

"Faith untried may be true faith, but it is sure to be little faith, and it is likely to remain dwarfish so long as it is without trials. Faith never prospers so well as when all things are against her: tempests are her trainers, and lightnings are her illuminators. When a calm reigns on the sea, spread the sails as you will, the ship moves not to its harbour; for on a slumbering ocean the keel sleeps too. Let the winds rush howling forth, and let the waters lift up themselves, then, though the vessel may rock, and her deck may be washed with waves, and her mast may creak under the pressure of the full and swelling sail, it is then that she makes headway towards her desired haven. No flowers wear so lovely a blue as those which grow at the foot of the frozen glacier; no stars gleam so brightly as those which glisten in the polar sky; no water tastes so sweet as that which springs amid the desert sand; and no faith is so precious as that which lives and triumphs in adversity. Tried faith brings experience. You could not have believed your own weakness had you not been compelled to pass through the rivers; and you would never have known God’s strength had you not been supported amid the water-floods. Faith increases in solidity, assurance, and intensity, the more it is exercised with tribulation. Faith is precious, and its trial is precious too."

Spurgeon, C. H. (2006). Morning and evening : Daily readings (Complete and unabridged; New modern edition.). Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers.

The Answer to Consumeristic Christianity? You'll be surprised.

"The problem with implicitly salesy evangelism is bad theology, not bad technique, and it requires more than a simple change in method. If you feel like a used-car salesman talking about Jesus, the solution to the perceived lack of authenticity isn't a smoother pitch—it's a renewal of the church. The potency of personal evangelism is, as it has always been, the simple and earnest retelling of what God has done in the lives of his people. Of course, this requires a community to back up our claims."

See the whole article "Jesus is Not a Brand" by Tyler Wigg-Stevenson

Flipping Presbyteries

Here is a snippet of presentation I made at the Los Ranchos Presbytery meeting framing up a different way of thinking about the kinds of meetings we have in "governing bodies".  This is part of the ongoing work of the LRP Odyssey Group.

Links to Some Friends Who are Living Out Their Callings...

One of the teenagers in my church has a website of her poetry...

Two of my colleagues are trying to change the world through a small business...

One of the young adults is in South Africa for two years serving with Acres of Love...

One of the young moms is also in South Africa right now.  She wrote these words on her site that are about as satisfying to a pastor's heart as anything:

This is not a vacation. This is a God assignment. Since I gave my life to Christ I have prayed unceasingly to be used by Him to help save the world and make a lasting impression in whatever place He wanted to use me. And of course, He has been so faithful to His word. I am being used by God, the creator of the universe to reach out to suffering orphans in South Africa, who by no fault of their own, are victims to the tragic AIDS pandemic. This is how God is at work to restore the world. He uses his faithful believers and followers to be His presence and action to a hurting people that need to experience his love and grace. Why me, there in South Africa? Why that cause? I don't know, I don't question. I just thank God for answering my prayers, for trusting me, for using me, for making my life purposeful. I am an example to my young daughters that when you surrender to the God that created you and He will raise you up to do great things in this world.

Thoughtful Contributions to our Denominational Dilemma

Once again, my pal, Mark Roberts is offering a thoughtful contribution to the ongoing discussion about issues related to the "house divided" that is the PCUSA. I heartily recommend Mark's two series:

Why Not Just Leave the PCUSA?

The PCUSA and Church Property

Mark will also be speaking at the Presbyterian Coalition Gathering at St. Andrew's Church Newport Beach on October 13-15

"A Traveling Salesman, Brad Pitt and The Big Question"

Die and Do Right, or "How to Survive by Dying..."

My most recent favorite book is Deep Survival: Who Lives, Who Dies and Why. It is a fascinating study on the internal capacities necessary for surviving crisis.  There are a whole host of amazing lessons that are applicable both to surviving the wilderness as well as the chaos of life.  (Many of the lessons of which can be found in an article at National Geographic Adventure here.)

A number of the principles that stood out to me resonated with words that have been ringing in my heart since the Spirit of Jesus called me to be one of his followers in the world.  And lately, as I have mused on issues around leading organizational change (especially within my own congregation and within the PCUSA denomination), I have found myself coming back to some of these thoughts again and again. So let me offer just three of the "survival principles" as Christian leadership principles for our denomination and our day--and see if they have any relevance to you in your particular contexts:

1. Survivors: "Deny Denial"  The tendency to believe that things are going to get better is universal.  Every year people die on Half Dome in Yosemite because they believe that the storm clouds overhead are going to pass "them" by.  That is, until lightning strikes...again. And that most wilderness accidents are a direct result of this denial: "A hiker in denial will continue walking even after losing the trail, assuming he’ll regain it eventually. He’ll press on—and become increasingly lost—even as doubt slowly creeps in."  Gonzales gives direct advice here:  "Learn to recognize your tendency to see things not as they are but how you wish them to be and you’ll be better able to avoid such crises." Part of my blogging on this page, leading in my church and working in our Presbytery has been marked by a renewed commitment to "deny denial".  (I hear echoes of John 8:23, do you?) I believe that the only way to move through the current crises in our church and in our world is through looking squarely at what leadership expert Jim Collins calls, "the brutal facts."  Which leads to...
2. "A good survivor says: 'I may die. I’ll probably die. But I’m going to keep going anyway.'  (Echoes of Matthew 16:25, huh?) Lately as I have been talking about our denomination, I have been writing and saying aloud what I have felt for years: With our deeply held competing world views, we very likely cannot survive as a denomination together.  I believe in my heart that it is only a matter of time until the PCUSA as we know it, reorganizes into a new entity of some kind.  I have no idea when, but it is inevitable to me.  But...that reality does not fill me with dread or despair, but freedom because of this third principle...
3. Survivors: "Do the Next Right Thing".  And this, maybe now more than ever, is the most important consideration.  What does it mean for us to "do the next right thing" in a situation where we are denying denial, squarely looking at the reality that our denomination is probably going to di, that many churches are dying and that  the Christendom culture that we have operated in for years has been dead (or on life support maybe) for decades?   What should we be doing besides cursing the darkness, waiting for the ship to go down, blaming one another, giving up or whistling in the dark?  To paraphrase that famous biblical question from Luke 3:10, "What shall we do?
   
   (Tolstoy once answered this question by declaring that he would "add his light to the sum of light in the world."  Which is a pretty good answer, I'd say.) 
   
   For me, doing the next right thing means fundamentally being obedient to Christ expressed specifically through: 

• Using the most respectful, honest language possible whenever there are deeply held competing values at stake.
• Thinking the best of those with whom I disagree and affirming whatever I possibly can.
• Listening, empathizing and  understanding
• Staying calm, connected and consistent to my convictions as possible.
• Being open to biblical correction. 
• In everything working to fulfill Jesus prayer, "Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven."
• And wherever I am, above all, "doing the next right thing" that is at hand.

As for the PCUSA, we may not "make it" as a denomination, but maybe the way we go about dying could be part of the new life that God wants to reveal to a dying world.

(P.S.  If anyone else wants to read the book or the article and comment on the other "survival lessons" that he raises--and apply them to whatever situation you find yourself--please do..it's a fascinating thought experiment with many leadership implications.)