The Present Future, Chapter 3 (Part Two)

As I've mentioned before, McNeal doesn't mince words when it comes to what needs to be done in the North American church in order for it to survive and thrive in today's culture.

The first paragraph under the Tough Question category in this chapter hit me like a ton of bricks:

"If you are a church leader, be aware that when you head down this road toward developing a missionary force, you are going to do some significant soul-searching and ministry reprioritization. Your church budget may shrink. Your church calendar may get less crowded. You many not have as many meetings. You will lose control of the church ministry. You are going to be challenged not only to release ministry, you are also going to be challenged to release members from churchianity, to quit gauging their spiritual maturity by how much they "support the church." You may see them less, but you will exponentially increase your impact on their lives and your impact on the community where your church is located."

McNeal then tells a story of how he was commissioned to do some strategic planning for large churches, and when he mentioned the idea of impacting the community, he was met with blank stares. These pastors were expecting him to solve the problems within their own church - to help them develop strategies to get people to do church work. He adds, "This is what life in the church bubble can do to you. It shrink-wraps your vision down to the size of your church."

McNeal then goes into some more of what I call "church jargon" about what the problem is, which I won't bore you with but will instead very succinctly explain what he, as well as what Frost and Hirsch describe in their book The Shaping Of Things To Come, means. The church for too long has used the following formula to determine the focus and mission of the church:

ecclesiology ---> mission

In other words, churches start out with what they want their church to look like, what they want their services to look like, what they want Sunday morning programming to look like - and then their view of ecclesiology then determines the mission of the church. It's similar to what I posted back in the day (which I was surprised to find on a couple other blogs, since it really wasn't my idea, it was Dan Kimball's thought), which you can find here.

Here's what really should happen:

christology ---> missiology ---> ecclesiology

We first start out with looking at what Jesus did while he was here and what he taught his disciples. This then helps us develop our mission, which then helps us develop our view of church - based on the mission that Christ has given us.

This brings us to what I talk about in the other Kimball-inspired post, which you can find here.

Let's continue on with McNeal:

After the intellectual gobblety-gook, his suggestion is this: to release members to become missionaries, you have to do two things - create a culture informed by missiology and create venues where people can practice being missionaries.

He gives some examples, and then says this:

"These ministry efforts are not add-on things to do but are part of a community orientation that is fundamental to the church's mission. Releasing people to be missionaries will turn your congregation inside out. It will help people and families integrate their lives around their sense of mission by reducing the compartmentalization that plagues them. Rather than trying to attract people's leftover energies (after work, school, family and so on), release them to find and give expression to their missionary calling. Then watch the energy flow! The key is to have a practice of saying "yes" to people's ideas about ways to be on mission."

This paragraph reminds me of one of the first illustrations I read concerning the emerging church movement that really interested me and re-energized me. It was in an article by Christianity Today about the Emergent Church. In my next post, I will explain this illustration; this post is long enough.