I noticed this quote on the blog of Emerging Grace:
I'm pondering this one. My first thought is "Yes!" because I have been feeling like too often the church pushes people to be part of it's programs and structures without recognizing what people's work outside of those programs and structures does to promote the kingdom of God. My favorite example is do we value someone becoming a little league coach as much as we value someone becoming a Sunday school teacher?
But I think I differ from EG in that I see that our life mission is the mission of the organization, they are the same: to bring the Kingdom of God. What could differ is not so much the mission as the strategies. A military analogy: while the army, the navy and the air force have the same mission in war, they carry out that mission in different ways. A social service analogy: Education, Health and Child and Family Services all aim to improve the lives of people in our society, but they focus on different areas which sometimes overlap, in accomplishing that goal.
Within the church, we all have the same mission. However, each individual might have a different strategy in that mission. Is a local church to be a place that has a certain strategy, and our task is to define that strategy and gather others around to carry it out? Or can a local church be a place of gathering for individuals, each of whom has a different strategies of promoting the Kingdom, and we are a place that nurtures individuals. Is the church a grower of individuals or a grower of strategies? Or both?
In my opinion, the purpose of a church community is to support individuals in the accomplishment of their life mission rather than to draw them in for the purpose of accomplishing the mission of the organization.
I'm pondering this one. My first thought is "Yes!" because I have been feeling like too often the church pushes people to be part of it's programs and structures without recognizing what people's work outside of those programs and structures does to promote the kingdom of God. My favorite example is do we value someone becoming a little league coach as much as we value someone becoming a Sunday school teacher?
But I think I differ from EG in that I see that our life mission is the mission of the organization, they are the same: to bring the Kingdom of God. What could differ is not so much the mission as the strategies. A military analogy: while the army, the navy and the air force have the same mission in war, they carry out that mission in different ways. A social service analogy: Education, Health and Child and Family Services all aim to improve the lives of people in our society, but they focus on different areas which sometimes overlap, in accomplishing that goal.
Within the church, we all have the same mission. However, each individual might have a different strategy in that mission. Is a local church to be a place that has a certain strategy, and our task is to define that strategy and gather others around to carry it out? Or can a local church be a place of gathering for individuals, each of whom has a different strategies of promoting the Kingdom, and we are a place that nurtures individuals. Is the church a grower of individuals or a grower of strategies? Or both?


3 Comments:
I vote that it must be the first, but can be both.
If you ARE the church and you work in society, you already have your "mission" statement from your job description. I am more and more believing this to the extent that I WONDER if we are giving tithe first to the government to care for the poor (NOT 10% but 25 -30%)and then to the CHURCH to do the same thing only sometimes less efficently. I KNOW we have the scripture that says "How can they hear without a preacher?" and the church is necessary but there MUST BE A BETTER WAY than we have now.
The thought about tithing to the gov't is very intriguing. When tithing was commanded, we didn't have CFS or SA.
I'm curious as to what's behind your own thoughts of "there MUST BE A BETTER WAY".
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home