Session #5: Jon

1. Hunsberger.
I guess I would not ask how our church accomplishes this task, but IF it does. From a fairly critical perspective I think this is a fundamental challenge facing our congregation. Although there is ample criticism of some of the more extreme examples of godlessness in our culture (sexuality, drug and alcohol abuse, etc.) our focus can often be on living holier lives than these extreme examples. As a result of comparing ourselves to the worst in society, it seems that there is a reluctance to admit sin, but rather rationalize it. “At least we’re not as bad as those people.” I believe this reluctance to admit sin eliminates our need for the gospel, or at least changes it. Instead of worshipping God and his holiness and being properly convicted of our sins and subsequently driven to our knees in repentance, we just try not to be as bad as THOSE people. Unfortunately, this transforms the ethos of the church from sinners at the foot of the cross (grasped by the gospel), to a group of people with similar upbringings and religious backgrounds that are seeking a happy, comfortable medium where they are just trying to be better than most of those godless crazies out there. I think many times we can’t criticize our own culture because that would mean criticizing and questioning ourselves and our loved ones and our skin isn’t thick enough to do it. We are too scared to really look in the mirror or allow the truth of the gospel message to engage us. We avoid. All the time we avoid.

2. Hendrick
The first century church needed to distinguish itself from Judaism. One of the ways this was made easy is that Judaism in the first century was more easily defined. There were hundreds of rules that defined behavior and in some sense distinguished Judaism from culture. Early Christianity needed to work hard to redefine itself, and it did so by breaking away from (behaviorally) many of the clearly defined traditions of Judaism. The NA church has a similar task, but I believe it is more difficult because the church in NA is not as clearly defined in our culture. Under the umbrella of the Church in NA there are thousands of differences. As a result we cannot just redefine ourselves as compared to whomever, but must define ourselves in contrast to our constantly changing culture. I like the six points that Hendricks brings up and agree that the most important thing is to recognize the truth of who the church is in the eyes of our culture. Points #1 and #5 revolve around a recognition of the present reality of the church. I think this was easy for the NT missional model because in some ways it was starting from scratch. In some ways it wasn’t. We can see throughout the book of Galatians the discussion Paul has trying to get his audience to recognize that they don’t need to be both Jews and Christ followers. In points #2 and #3 there is an introduction of a process or activity in which the truth of the reality of the church in NA might be discovered if not understood already. I think this was a necessary part of the NT missional church because it recognized its situation (#1, and #5) already. In the NA church I think there would be some ah-ha moments for people in engaging in #2 and #3. Finally, I see #4 and #6 as the mission/purpose statement that was the backbone of the NT church, and could be ours as well.

3. Junkin
The closest I have been to this is the community I had as a student in College living in the dorms, and then also as a Resident Director (person in charge of the dorm). These experiences were both at Christian liberal arts colleges, and because the students had quite a bit in common before coming, it made the transition to a godly community possible. There was also the healthy tradition of strong community and relationships coming into the college dorm experience as well as the defined structure of the college life. Essentially the university administration had created an atmosphere that made it easier to develop and deepen Christian community. I think one of the strongest elements that led to the successful development of genuine Christian community was the understanding that people had BEFORE committing of college. Part of this is the understanding and expectation of transition and transformation. These students and their parents planned for this transition, were spending a lot of money, and expecting to be changed. It was an entire life transition and transformation.
The second element was the quantity of time spent with one another. Many of these guys ate every meal, studied, slept, exercised, hung out, essentially did everything with one another for months at a time. In addition, they traveled together, met each others families, worshipped together, prayed for each other, and discussed everything under the sun. There is no substitution for time spent in the development and deepening of community. I believe to this day it is the closest I have ever been to genuine Christian community.

4. Roxburgh
I love these models, but I can see how it might prove difficult to get a congregation to agree with it. There is a battle against the “that’s what we pay you to do” mentality that can be prevalent in today’s churches. I can see in our church how there is a tension between people that support the first or the second model and see those as the only two options. I like the third the most, but can also see how some Pastors might not like this model because it does give up some control of the execution of the church programs. For the most part I think it comes down to communication of the structure and making sure the properly gifted people are in the right places. It is difficult though because the Pastor is getting paid and there must be something (for the sake of the congregation) that separates him from the volunteer staff. The community will determine what that is that should separate their pastor and that is usually how the Pastor’s job description is formed. Unfortunately, sometimes that is just a list of what no one else wants to do, or it can be a select list of things the congregation defines as “real ministry”. Looks great on paper, but it would prove to be a tough sell for some congregations.

5. Hunsberger
Okay, let’s get this straight, I am serving in a church that is more like a vendor of religious services. It is missional, but mostly it supports other people to be missional without actually being very missional itself. I am racking my brain to think of how I might even begin a conversation about this subject with our Senior Pastor, much less our church leadership. I am also thinking of how to discern the differences between people’s attitudes towards church being either missional or just vendor of religious services. In the first shift I can see it is completely up to the participant to determine whether a program or activity is one or the other. I believe we address the importance of the application to our teachings, etc., but whether people actually do apply these things is ultimately up to them. I like the shift from committee to team, but wonder how people would feel about being less informed and having less control/input in how things are done. Sadly enough, I think some people might miss the opportunity to be the center of attention and have a voice amongst a group of people. I’m not sure if people would be able to give that up for the sake of others’ salvation. I know it sounds awful, but for some it might be hard to break because their identity is so entangled in it. The third one looks at a Pastor as a catalyst within a congregation to spur them on. I can see how this could be very exhausting, especially if that is not really why the congregation the pastor. Next, how necessary is a pastor to motivate and inspire in a church that desires to hire a pastor that will motivate and inspire them. Aren’t they well on their way already. I feel like the shift from recruitment to missions is kind of semantics. One is going out, and the other is bringing in, but isn’t that just because in mission going out is the first step to bring in? Besides “giving the gospel away”, isn’t our best hope of that an exposure to genuine Christian community lived out. That isn’t something that can just be handed out on the street corner. It really must be a blend of both pursuit, as well as welcome and invitation. The last one is also informed by a leader’s inspiration and motivation. Yes an entrepreneur might even be more focused upon reaching out to new people (gaining market share/being missional), than the missionary leader who is one who “forms community”. That sounds like quite a bit of work with the insiders and not outreach. I think this reading has gotten a bit muddled in my brain.