Ministry Across the Tracks

Real estate in church ministries is important. It is all about location, location, location.  Unfortunately, when many churches and their leaders think of missions they think of ministry to those on the “other side of the railroad tracks.”  The ministry of mission to the least, last and lost means going out of a suburban context into a poverty stricken urban or rural setting.  What is not often fully realized is that context determines reach.

I served as a church leader in a church in Grand Forks, North Dakota, that seemed to be positioned to reach and serve people in needy circumstances. Much of the congregation was made up of people from broken homes, recovering addicts, the mentally and socially challenged, as well as families living at or just above poverty.  In effect, I assumed that the church was reaching those that Jesus commanded his followers to reach: the least, last and lost.

At one board meeting, I presented to the church board the opportunity to reach an apartment complex that had people with disabilities, mental handicaps, and financial needs and no opportunity to connect with a church community.  I shared a story of Jesus’ compassion for the “least of these” and asked the board to brainstorm ways in which we could reach and serve them.  It was not to go as I was hoping.

After a few awkward moments of silence and seat shuffling, one of the men on the board spoke up and declared a bit angrily, “Pastor, we have enough of those kinds of people here already!  We need some stable people; people who are successful, who make money and can contribute something to the church!  We don’t need any more of those kind of people.”

Now I felt uneasy. You could sense the anxiety level in the room go up.  Perhaps this man had spoken aloud what all the others were merely thinking.  I had only recently assumed leadership of the church.  I let his words settle into the room before I responded.

After a moment, I asked, “When you say, ‘We don’t need any more of those kind of people,’ you mean the ones Jesus said we are supposed to be reaching – the least, last and lost?  Isn’t that precisely the mission that has been given to us?”

Everyone was staring at the table. I had the feeling that I was alone on this either because some agreed with him or because they had no response to offer.  I then recognized that, in this particular saint’s mind anyway, mission and ministry was something you did “for those over there” when you had money in the budget for it.  I tried to lighten the moment with a bit of humor.

“I recognize our need for resources and money to fulfill our mission.  However, to adapt Jesus’ words, ‘A poor budget you will always have with you’.  Our budget will never meet our vision and dreams for what we want to do in the kingdom.  At the same time, we cannot wait for it to before we launch out and do anything.  Action must precede our faith in the Lord to provide.”

The objector looked up at me. “I disagree.  I think it is irresponsible to forge ahead with anything that we do not have the monies for and foolish to even discuss them until it is there in our budget.”

“And that requires getting the “right kind of people” in church first,” I offered.

“Yes,” he replied.  “Why can’t we focus upon business people and people who are successful?  They will provide the resources and leadership for all of these things you want to do.”

“Personally, I think that is backwards from what Jesus said the focus of the kingdom is supposed to be for the church,” I explained.  “Also, it has nothing to do with the ‘things I want to do’ but the opportunities I believe the Lord is putting before us.  If anyone sees or hears of others, I am open and would be happy to entertain them. I think that we need to consider that these are all possible divine appointments that the Lord puts in our path.  The question is, ‘What are we going to do with it?'”

I could tell by the board members posture that he was shut down and not going to offer anymore dialogue. My goal was not to shut him down but to generate dialogue.  Somehow, that didn’t look like it was going to happen.  He mind seemed made up at this point.  So, I turned to the other board members and church staff present.

“What do the rest of you think?” I asked.

There were a few mumbles and nods but nothing of substance offered by way of defense or objection to either position. I quickly determined we were not going to go anywhere with this subject at this moment and decided to move on with the meeting.

“Well, I would like us to prayerfully and strategically consider this opportunity.  Meanwhile, let’s move on with our agenda…”

Chinese Dragon, Chinatown, Seattle, Washington ©Weatherstone/Ron Almberg, Jr. (2010)

The meeting moved on but did so awkwardly after that moment. It was not the first time that I had encountered this objection to ministry opportunities and it wouldn’t be the last.  I am not sure I still have a clear answer or way forward through such times.  What happens most often, as it happened on this occasion, the individual leaves the board or leadership position and, soon afterward, the church.

Part of the problem to overcome is the thinking that mission is something we do “over there”. It is not something welcomed or embraced in the church’s present context.  Thus, it is much easier to send missionaries, mission teams and financial help to people overseas than it is to reach and serve those right in our own neighborhood.  Such a dichotomy was never intended by our Founder.  The same Jesus who sent his followers out all over the world with the Great Commission was the same person who went through his own home town and region ministering to those who already knew him.

Once those outside the church are identified as “those people”, then the church grows cold in its outreach efforts. In our minds and spirits, we remove ourselves from those in need.  Suddenly, any service we offer is done out of a paternalistic attitude rather than the attitude of a fellow traveler and beggar through life.  It is no wonder that the Apostle Paul worked hard to remind all of the saints in the churches that he wrote to that they too were once one of “those people”.  And they were not to forget it!

Spiritually speaking, we all are “on the wrong side of the tracks” and need help. We are all part of the least, last and lost family.  Ministry as Jesus foresaw it was not something his followers were to “go and do” and then return to the comfort of their homes and beautiful church edifices.  Ministry was (and is) always to be an “as you are going” experience.  It is a “wherever you are” endeavor.

Yes, there are those the Lord seems to call and position for service in far away places to people with different culture and language. And, yes, the Lord often provides divine appointments outside our immediate sphere of influence or experience (just read the Book of the Acts of the Apostles).  However, for most of us, it will most likely be something right within our context to those that we can serve: the foreigner, orphan, widow, hungry, poor, homeless, and disadvantaged right within our own communities.

In other words, they are our neighbors. They are not “those people” but “our people” who need compassionate help.  Who are our neighbors?  Jesus pointed to any of those in need.  In the parable of the Good Samaritan, the good neighbor was the one who showed compassion.  It is the second part of the Great Commandment: “to love your neighbor as yourself.”  We do not get to pick our neighbors.  It is whoever is in our town or city on whatever side of the tracks they live.  They are not an objective or destination.  They are one of us; least, last and lost trying to find our way home.

©Weatherstone/Ron Almberg, Jr. (2010)

Related Articles

• Church Planter: The Man, The Mission, The Message (reflectivemusings.wordpress.com)
• On the cost and grace of parish ministry – Part XII (cruciality.wordpress.com)
• 2 Corinthians 11 (asorensen.wordpress.com)
• GAFCON Oxford Statement on Anglican Covenant (bpdt.wordpress.com)

Read Full Post »

The Great Imbalance In World Missions

Someone once coined the phrase “holy dissatisfaction” to refer to the sense a follower of Christ has once he or she has received a larger view of God’s Kingdom.  I think it is an apt description.  It is not just a mere discontent with the status quo in our American churches.  It is not bred out of some “holier-than-thou” mentality.  Neither is it an expression of a sour grapes attitude by someone hurt by church authorities.  There is no doubt that these do occur.  They have their own reasons and results.  This is something bigger than those things.

Holy dissatisfaction, instead, refers to what grabs someone after they have seen and experienced what could be in God’s Kingdom if all the barriers that have been set in place were removed.  The barriers of cultural expectations, institutional requirements and limiting authoritative structures prevent what is possible from ever possibly happening.  A person often experiences this when in another ministry context such as a missions trip, a ministry experience with modern apostolic leaders leading new church movements or time spent with someone who is doing what one has always dreamed of doing or thought possible in and through the local church.

I have often warned people who go on missions trips that they could come back ruined for ministry in their local church.  This doesn’t always happen, but it frequently does.  In another ministry context, particularly among frontier missions work where the church is in its infancy or first generation, one sees ministry at its most basic and simplest form.  Church and ministry revolve around the Word, the Eucharist or communion and the work of serving others.  Especially in poverty areas, one witnesses accomplishing ministry with so little when compared to the local church back home that seems to accomplish so little with so much by comparison.

I have recently been taking a class through “Perspectives On the World Christian Movement.” It is a one-night-a-week 15 week course that brings together speakers from all over the U.S.A. and world who represent different frontier missions agencies.  These women and men do ministry among the unreached people of the world.

Often when the idea of “unreached people” is brought up, Americans will say, “Yeah, we have unreached people right here.” This, by frontier missions workers, is not the definition of “unreached.”  Virtually everyone in American lives within the reach of someone who is a Christian with a church not too far away and has access to Christian media via the television, radio, bookstore or computer.  On the other hand, “unreached people” across the world have no such opportunity.

Unreached people groups – of which there are about 6 – 7,000 different linguistic and cultural groups in the world – have no access to a follower of Jesus let alone a church or a media in their language and cultural setting.  A few may know about “Christianity” but it is seen as a foreign religion with no relevance to them and their people.  No one is reaching out to them.  They are isolated from the gospel culturally and linguistically.

The shocking truth about the unreached people of our world is that they still represent about 30 – 40% of the world’s population – around 2 billion people.  That is not the worst of it.  The greatest tragedy is that only 10% of evangelical world missions efforts – time, money and personnel – are used to reach and plant a culturally, linguistic relevant church among these people.  That means that 90% of world missions efforts go to areas of the world that are already reached with the gospel, have a viable self-sustaining and reproducing church and developing leadership.  This is the great imbalance in world missions.  As such, it is the great imbalance reflected in most of our evangelical churches budgets and outreach efforts.

Waitsburg, Washington, Spring 2010 ©Weatherstone/Ron Almberg, Jr. (2010)

Still, those churches that actively participate in world and local missions boast about the amount of money sent out each year.  Often that amount represents less than 10% of their overall church budget.  Sometimes it may reach as much as 20%.  The question that begs to be answered for those still unreached and unengaged with the message of Jesus Christ is, “What portion is being used to advance the message of Jesus where he is not known and has never been heard?”

If this great imbalance in world missions is going to be equalized to reflect the real-world need, then churches, missions agencies and their leadership are going to have to count the cost and steer a different course. I come from an Assemblies of God background that is proud of its world missions efforts.  Still, when one considers the United States Assemblies of God World Missions department and looks at their budget and personnel placement, the statistic remains true.

Even with the placement of new missionaries, most are going to already evangelized countries and fields of service.  Many serve as support personnel to missionaries in countries with growing, reproducing churches.  This is not only true of the Assemblies of God but of many missions organizations and denominational missionary efforts.  Reassigning missionaries, closing countries and fields or pointing new missionary recruits to selected fields is a problem for all of them.  In a few instances, mission agencies serve only to provide expatriate services to people who want to live abroad.  The work that some of these expats do has little Kingdom impact let alone benefit.

The different course that must be navigated will mean making some hard decision regarding personnel and budgets.  Measuring successes will have to be recalibrated to frontier missions efforts.  Pet missions projects or fields of service and personal agendas will need to be laid aside.  A renewed effort to call people to serve in areas of unreached people will need to be voiced with new energies.  The apostle Paul’s example to preach the gospel where it had not been heard and build the church where the foundation was not even laid must be renewed in our 21st century efforts.  It will take great effort and some time, but I believe we can, in the near future, bring some equilibrium to the great imbalance of world missions.

©Weatherstone/Ron Almberg, Jr. (2010)

Read Full Post »

Linguaphobia

People in the United States are not the only ones on earth who have an anxiety about learning another language.  It is a common problem all over the world.  Some of it is due to educational attempts that do not work real well to teach foreign languages.  Some of it is due to a strong nationalism and identity with a mother-language.  Anxiety or fear of learning a foreign language is often called “linguaphobia”.

The real problem develops when linguaphobia develops into a linguacentrism; the idea that one particular language should be the only one spoken.  This is becoming more prevalent in the United States in recent years as a result of the rise in immigration and in particular the rise of Spanish-speaking illegal immigrants.  More and more, one hears the angry declaration, “They live in America now.  They should speak English!”  As if, somehow crossing a boarder grants one the magical and immediate power to learn a foreign language.

The cultural tension becomes greater when xenoglossophobia develops among the mother-language speakers – English, in the case of the United States.  This is the fear of foreign language speakers.  It can also be called xenophobia; the fear or dislike of people different than your self.  I believe this is a growing problem in the United States.  It is a problem created more from “group-think” than any actual threat.

The fact of the matter is that the United States has always been an nation of immigrants.  As such, it has always contained within its borders people who speak many different languages.  Early on, it began mainly with European languages – German, French, Dutch, Italian, Russian, Swedish, Norwegian, and Danish among many others.  This explain the complexity of the American English language.  It is a compound of many additional foreign words!

Another fact that is often overlooked today is that English language acquisition has often taken immigrants a generation or two to assimilate so that it is no longer a foreign or second language to them.  In the Midwest for example, many community churches retained their ethnic language identities in German and Scandinavian languages up until a few decades ago!  There are still a few who use the original mother-tongue language occasional in their church services.

Indian Heaven Wilderness Stream, Summer 2002 ©Weatherstone/Ron Almberg, Jr. (2010)

My Swedish grandfather came from Sweden as a child, struggled to learn English, but still retained and spoke Swedish until his death.  It was not until his children came along that English was the mother-tongue language.  As his grandchild, I know and understand no Swedish.  I suspect that for recent immigrants – legal or illegal – to the United States it will take the same amount of time.  Our own experience as immigrants should make us more tolerant and patient with new arrivals to this land of opportunity.

It is particularly shameful for those within the Church to be intolerant or xenophobic.  Since the Great Commission compels us to be witnesses to every ethnic group on earth, they should see this as a golden opportunity.  Instead of needing to go to foreign lands to the people of the world, the people of the world are coming to our communities and neighborhoods!  This saves the Church thousands of dollars in sending missionaries overseas.  Now the mission field is settling around us in small ethnic conclaves that can be easily reached by many Christians and churches.

The final picture of the Bride of Christ – the Church – we have in The Book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ should also motivate us to welcome and embrace people of different cultures and languages.  The vision presented to us (7:9) is a multi-ethnic, multi-language celebration gathered around the Lamb’s throne.  They will be singing and dancing – each according to their cultural and language – to the words, “Salvation belongs to our God, who sits on the throne and to the Lamb!” (7:10).  I really do not think that at that glorious and holy moment some xenophobe American is going to yell out, “Hey, speak English!”

©Weatherstone/Ron Almberg, Jr. (2010)

Read Full Post »

What To Say, How To Say It

Many people do not know that I am terribly afraid of public speaking.  What a horrible handicap to have for someone called to preach and teach God’s Word, huh?  In most public situations, I am perfectly fine sitting quietly and letting other people do the talking.  I confess that I am a closet wallflower.  It has occurred to me on more than one occasion (usually, right before I get up to deliver a homily) that our Heavenly Father must have a great sense of humor.

It is a long and tortuous story of how a young man, who used to take a ‘zero’ on any oral assignments in school rather than get up in front of people and talk, ended up becoming a preacher, of all things.  It had to be in answer to someone’s prayer or to God’s sense of humor.  This back-story will have to be for another time.  There is a related fear that I wish to confess to you.  It is a fear of not being able to communicate at all.

One of the first times I delivered a sermon as a young associate pastor in Bremerton, Washington, time stopped.  I had just read the Scriptural text and prayed for God’s blessing upon the message.  Then, as if in a transcendent moment of holy revelation when time is suspended, I looked out upon the congregation with new eyes.

“What do you have to say to these people?” is the question that ran through my soul.  A cold sweat came over me as I looked out upon the lives seated before me  There, waiting in hopefulness for God’s Word spoken to their hour of need, were people of every walk of life.  What was I going to possibly say to the elderly couple who had been years in church three times longer than I had years in life that they had not already heard?  What did I have to say to the recent divorcee from a shattered marriage and home?  What words of hope had I for the couple grieving the loss of a child from SID’s?  Or, to the widower who had just lost his wife of 53 years?  Young or old, what did I have to say that could in any way benefit them?  What was I doing behind a pulpit?  What was I thinking!?

I remember the petrifying fear while standing there as if it were yesterday.  It seemed an eternity to me, though I am sure that to the congregation it seemed only a moment or two, as if I were collecting my thoughts.  Nevertheless, a reassuring voice and presence accompanied my spirit as God’s Spirit reminded me that it was not my word or my wisdom that I needed to proclaim.  I was simply the vessel through whom God’s Word was proclaimed and preached.

I remember that occasion often and use it to spur me on to diligently study God’s Word, pray for leading and direction in what to teach or preach, and prepare to meaningfully communicate it.  My fear is not that I will not have something to say, but that I will not be able to communicate it in an effective way.  I want to be able to communicate clearly God’s message to a hungry and thirsty world.  May it always be God’s Word endowed with God’s Wisdom that fulfills the dream to know Jesus and make him known.

Mount Adams, Washington State, October 2001 ©Weatherstone/Ron Almberg, Jr. (2010)

The challenge for the church today and every believer in particular is to communicate the greatest message to the people in greatest need.  The danger is not communicating it at all or communicating it in such a way as to make it senseless and meaningless.  We have a Great Commission (Matt. 28:18 – 20) given to us by our Lord and Master to communicate his Good News message to all parts of His world.  What do we have to say to out city, town, or neighbors?  Just as important is answering the question: what is the most effective way to communicate the most important message ever?

My fear is not communicating effectively to our culture and generation.  One individual described it like being a group of Swahili immigrants from Africa who start a church here, keep their Swahili language, cultural forms and preferences, and way of doing church, but then wonder why people from the surrounding community are not coming to their church!  Why would we expect our neighbors and friends to make the leap over language and culture to hear a message in Swahili?  We wouldn’t.  So, are we simply making strange sounds to a people who cannot understand what we are saying?

Every believer is the Lord’s ambassador to spiritually lost people.  Part of this mission is to understand the times, changing needs, languages, and cultural forms of the community we are called to serve.  In simpler terms, every follower of Christ is a commissioned missionary to a foreign culture – to that of the world of a people far from God.  The way people far from God talk, the way they behave, the things they value, the things they spend their time doing, their social structures and networks, the things in which they find joy and happiness,  and how they raise their family, among many other things, may be radically different from our experiences.  Yet, it is to these people we are called to share God’s love and the message of his Kingdom.  At the end of our service among them may it be said of us that we did not just have a message but that we communicated that message effectively.

©Weatherstone/Ron Almberg, Jr. (2010)

Read Full Post »

Church Mission and Kingdom Mission

One of the 20th century’s great missiologists, Ralph D. Winter, identified the struggle between “church mission” and “kingdom mission” in the American or Western Church.  I came across one of his articles in “Perspectives On the World Christian Movement: A Reader” (4th Edition).  It captured my attention and provoked my thinking in regards to the local church and my experience as a church leader.

In the way Ralph D. Winter uses these terms, Kingdom Mission is the effort to approach and deal with broad social issues that effect society as a whole.  In other words, the mission is to change all of society, not just establish a church group focused upon personal sanctification and discipleship.  On the other hand, Church Mission is the work to establish discipleship methods that focus upon personal salvation and sanctification.

This struggle between what has been called in the past “the social gospel” and the “the salvation gospel” is nothing new.  It has been raging in the Western Church for more than 150 years!  Only recently has there been agreement that it is not an “either/or”” decision but a “both/and” one.  We need both the ministry to the body and ministry to the soul for the Gospel to be effective.  However, that discussion and resolution is still a difficult struggle at the local church level with limited resources.  Despite the high profile image before us of large mega-churches, the fact remains that the vast majority of churches in America and the West are churches of less than 100 people.

On more popular terms, the struggle is between being “outward focused” or “inward focused.”  Of course, almost all would agree that the local church needs both.  However, in practice it very rarely works out that way.  The vast majority of time and money is spent on Church Mission – ministering to and keeping those we have – and not Kingdom Mission – reaching out to and helping to transform the lives of those around us not yet among us.

As a church leader, I have always pushed congregations to “think outside its walls.”  This is harder than what it sounds.  The faithful hear the words but our church structures have conditioned them to do otherwise.  Almost every ministry of the church is inward focused on Church Mission and not outward focused at all on Kingdom Mission.  I have often tried to challenge a church’s leaders by telling them that, “Unless a local church can prove its value to its community, I believe it should pay taxes!”  So far, that has not been very motivating.

The culture of the church works against this type of effort from the top down when the majority of a pastor’s time is spent – and is expected to be spent – with parishioners instead of the least, last and lost of the community.  Pastoral time is consumed with administrative duties, particularly as the church grows, as well as keeping the sheep he has content and happy.

Heaven forbid he should miss visiting someone at home or in the hospital when he is needed because he is involved in a community outreach project or ministering to someone not a part of the church!  After all, what is he being paid for?  I have been told by someone that, “Since I pay my tithes, I consider the pastor to be my employee.”  That is definitely a Church Mission attitude, not a Kingdom Mission attitude.

Colin on the wreck of the Peter Iredale, Warrenton, Oregon, 2002 ©Weatherstone/Ron Almberg, Jr. (2010)

Each of the congregations I served attempted to do things that served the community with “no strings attached.”  I considered these more than just attempts at community public relations.  I considered them a vital part of building relationship with our community as well as meeting a need.  However, in every congregation, I have faced and answered to a skeptical deacon or church leader who wants to know after it was all over, “But pastor, how many people started attending our church as a result of our efforts?  How many visited our church?  How much did this send us in the ‘hole’ in our budget?  Did anyone get saved?”

These types of questions are endemic to the attitudes of many congregants.  Who can blame them?  After all, they have limited time and limited finances.  They want the most “bang for their buck.”  Nevertheless, it misses an important part of the Church’s mission; the part where the Church is to be a change-agent for transforming the world around it.  There is not quick-and-easy plan to do that in any community.  It takes a commitment to what I call “being vocal and visible” in one’s world, which requires commitment and consistency.  It earns the right to be heard and to minister to people’s real needs.

As Ralph D. Winter warned,

“The Lord’s Prayer…becomes too often ‘Our kingdom come’ as the Church is concerned with the personal and spiritual fulfillment of its individual members, its building plans, etc., not the solution of problems beyond its boundaries.”

The trap in our local churches is “keepin’ busy for Jesus” but not at things that lead to real change in our communities.  What if more local churches released their people to volunteer at the local food banks, homeless shelters, clothing banks, pregnancy centers, sexual and child abuse agencies, adoption agencies, community children’s services, local family services, jail and prison ministries, and free medical clinics?  What if the local church focused on after-school tutoring, divorce and grief care, and volunteering at local schools?  If you are a church leader and reading this makes you nervous and sweat, then you understand the cost of what Ralph D. Winter is proposing.

We have conditioned our Evangelical churches to become individual focused on personal salvation and discipleship.  Even our outreach efforts are  most often measured according to what is convenient and what seems like a credible effort in our own eyes.  We want to be able to personally measure the results with “butts, bucks, and buildings.”  We want to focus upon what our own talents and interests offer instead of the needs around us.

I am guilty of this as a church leader, despite my best efforts.  I have been sucked into the vortex of “keepin’ busy for Jesus.”  Ralph D. Winter’s article provoked my thinking and a good amount of self-reflection.  I believe he sets before every church leader and local church a clarion challenge that requires our focus and dedication if we wish to be obedient to the mission of God’s Kingdom.  Let me leave you with his words,

“Our obedience is certainly flawed if focused only on what the world approves.  Our obligation is to seek the expansion of the knowledge of the glory of God and His Kingdom, and this would logically require us each to prayerfully seek God about doing the hardest thing we are able to do in the most crucial task we can find.  First John 3:8 says, ‘The Son of god appeadred for this purose, that He might destroy the works of the Devil.’  To follow Jesus is to go to war.  This side of the Millennium that’s what the Christian life is.  In a war what needs to be done comes first.  And a true sense of accomplishment is not that you did what you wanted to do, or what you thought you were best at, but what you felt convinced was most crucial, most important.  Doing good things is the biblical way to portray God’s character and glory only if we are willing to act without personal conditions.”  (“Three Mission Eras: And the Loss and Recovery of Kingdom Missions, 1800 – 2000” by Ralph D. Winter in “Perspectives On the World Christian Movement: A Reader” 4th ed.)

©Weatherstone/Ron Almberg, Jr. (2010)

Read Full Post »

Clash of Cultures

While driving in Pennsylvania in their gas-guzzling SUV, a family caught up to an Amish carriage.  The owner of the carriage obviously had a sense of humor, because attached to the back of the carriage was a hand printed sign:  “Energy Efficient Vehicle: Runs on oats and grass.  Caution: Do not step in exhaust.”

That is a very funny look at a clash of cultures.  Something akin to this happens every day, though it might not be as humorous.  Our world is quickly changing.  So much so that the difference between generations is like the difference between cultures.  One generation cannot relate to, let alone speak the language of, the next generation.  Not only that, but within the emerging generations there is a ‘tribalism’ taking place that fragments them into multiple ‘mini-cultures.’

Kids from the same city today could be broken up into a ‘multi-cultural’ mix of dress, language, and behaviors, each distinct from one another: “Preppies,” “Metalheads,” “Goths,” “Geeks,” “Rappers,” “Cowboys,” “Rockers,” “Punk Rockers,” and “Jocks,” among other group names.  Notice these do not revolve around ethnic identities.  This is because these groups transcend ethnicity.

The overarching question for the church is this: How do we influence this generation?  Many within the church would like to ‘bury their heads in the sand’ and just wait until Jesus’ return.  Is that the way?  Others throw up their hands in frustration and hopelessness and pronounce our world as beyond redemption.  Is that true?  What do you think?  Do you think the Great Commission is irrelevant for today’s world?  Do you believe that the Gospel message is impotent to affect today’s generation?  Do you think that the promised power of the Holy Spirit is insufficient to confirm the Gospel’s message to today’s world?  (Now, before you answer too quickly with words, what do your actions say?)

The danger in the Church among God’s people is to always see the generation following as beyond help, to persecute the next generation for its perceived moral decline and to scofflaw the attempts of the next generation’s leaders.  History seems to indicate this pattern.  Unfortunately, a generation that has nothing to offer to the future generation often grows nostalgic.  For every generation, polished memories of the past become more important than hopeful faith for the future.

Some would like to encapsulate the Church and Christian faith within a particular time period and tell us that unless you practice your faith like a 19^th century Anabaptist, or a 4^th century orthodox, or a 1960’s or 70’s Pentecostal or Charismatic, then you’re not “genuine.”  Others want to encrust the faith within a certain church fashion or practice so that unless your church service sounds or looks liturgical, Jewish, orthodox, Southern gospel, or “Pentecostal/Charismatic” then as such your are not “genuine.”  For 2000 years, every “innovation” brought about through renewal and revival in the church has ended up becoming an untouchable “sacred cow.’

I believe none of these hold the complete solution for our future.  They may help us discover part of the answer, but they will not bring us to a conclusive solution.  Knowing our history is important to our identity and sense of historical theology.  However, neither should it prevent us from presenting the Kingdom of God and the Gospel in a relevant and effective manner.  Too often we have confused method with message.

Someone once said, “You can’t answer tomorrow’s questions with yesterday’s answers.” How true.  Nevertheless, I believe the gospel message can transcend every language barrier, every cultural and ethnic wall, every era and generation and every human question.  Truly, the Word of God is a “mighty two-edged sword.”  The important thing is to keep the answer we present the same.  The challenge is presenting it in a way that our generation and the one behind us can receive and apply to their lives.

Ice Covered Evergreen on Mountain Hike, July 2003 ©Weatherstone/Ron Almberg, Jr. (2009)

The question put before us is whether we still believe the empowerment of the Holy Spirit is here today to enable us to be witnesses of Christ to this generation and so fulfill his Great Commission.  I believe that one of the toughest challenges to this generation of believers is regaining the “missionary mindset” that attempts to translate the gospel message into the culture and language of the generation following us.  Will we attempt to encrust the gospel in a time and generational code that dies with us?  Or, will we attempt to loose the power of the timeless gospel message into the new ‘cultures’ being formed around us in the next generation?

What will a 21^st century Christian look like? What does a genuine follower of Christ look like in their daily lifestyle?  What are his or her spiritual practices on a daily and weekly basis?  How do we identify whether someone is really “growing in the Lord”?  What journey or steps should people take toward spiritual maturity?  Does the Church remain relevant with its timeless message?

One author claims the Church is in danger of becoming, “Islands of irrelevance in a sea of despair”.  Is it too late?  Are we so far gone into a post-Christian age as some claim that our generation is deaf to the Gospel and spiritually lost? I don’t think so.  When the Apostle Paul was preaching the Kingdom of God in Christ in the first century, the odds looked grim.  There have been spiritually bleak times since then in every generation and culture since.  Yet, God continues to work and call people into his family.  We are told in the Book of Revelation that at the of the end ages, all the kingdoms and cultures of this world will be the Lord’s and he will reign over them forever and ever.  So, when cultures clash, Jesus’ Kingdom culture wins!

Our job is to effectively present that Kingdom culture to the generational cultures nearest us.  We will only be able to successfully do this by:

1) Remaining positive in our actions and outlook concerning the next generation.  Or, at least act like we are on the winning side!

2)  Remaining grounded in the Gospel’s message and claims.  Our message must never change.  This also requires a vigilance about how our methods shape our message.

3) Remaining relevant to the needs and challenges of the next generation.  This means meeting real needs and not the sentimental needs we have grown comfortable in meeting but that are not relevant anymore to the actual needs and challenges around us.

In these ways, we need no look behind us with worry but look forward with hope to the coming of Christ and his Kingdom to every culture and every generation.

©Weatherstone/Ron Almberg, Jr. (2009)

Read Full Post »