Killer Guitarist

Throw rocks and call me a sinner . . . Zakk Wylde rocks!

Mission and Priority Programs

Before I begin with this post let me preface by saying that some have suggested that my posts possess a critical and negative tone. I’m sorry about that . . . really. I don’t mean to be negative. But when we begin to offer alternatives to present or older forms of organizational structure then people often get defensive as if I’m attacking what they believe in.

Others have implied that offering new forms of church/organizational structure means that we must accept that what we’ve done in the past was wrong. It’s not that old ways or forms were wrong. It’s that a new culture demands new forms. Our commitment to mission in a post-modern context requires us to change.

So please read my posts with an open mind and know that I am really trying to be positive . . . even though the suggestion that things must change is seen as negative . . . thanks!

Now, about priority programs . . .

The struggle I have with priority programs is the thought that mission can be effectively carried out through them. Sunday School, youth programs, prayer meetings and etc. can be very beneficial and facilitate the discipleship process in many ways. But to make any one of these a “priority” and expect every church in the division or territory to follow a specific schedule and spend time and energy trying to increase attendance is missing the mark just a bit. Do you agree? Or not?

The feeling, then, would be that if the numbers were up then these activities would be working. However, if the numbers were down then we would be led to think that our people weren’t praying enough, our quality needed to be improved or maybe we need to be more aggressive in promoting our Sunday School.

As a mission we need to think cross-culturally. We need to discover how we can cross into the broader culture through proclaiming the gospel of Jesus. On the contrary, the priorities of Sunday School and other programs can easily serve as methods for feed our own sub-culture. Recruiting and assimilating others into our culture can easily be misunderstood as evangelism and discipleship.

A missional ministry is cross-cultural in nature and adapts to its ministry context. This means that in some Corps the worship style, format, time and place of gatherings might need to be questioned in an effort to fully engage and reach those we serve. Our own identity as an “army” might even need to be questioned.

Is it possible for an organization to sacrifice God’s mission on the altar of tradition? Promoting our brand of religion and marketable services can easily be misunderstood as mission.

So, what do you think?

Don’t be afraid to ask hard questions. We’re not being critical. We’re just trying to make the leap to a new cultural context.

Leadership and Cultural Shifts

Modernity is a term used to describe the condition of Western History since the mid-1400s. This period is said to be characterized by industrialization, the rise of capitalism and social movements, urbanization, mass literacy, and the proliferation of mass media.

Post-modernity, on the other hand, expresses the idea that the modern historical period has passed. It is characterized by globalization, consumerism, the fragmentation of authority, and the commoditization of knowledge.

Making the leap from modern culture to post-modern culture can be quite a challenge. In modern culture the gospel is contextualized. The communication is verbal, linear and abstract. Communication in the postmodern culture, however, is different. It consists of sound, visual images, and experience, in addition to words. In modern culture, the church became even more hierarchical and rationalized as it mimicked Henry Ford’s hierarchical, assembly line construction so as to maximize productivity. The result was the dehumanization and disempowerment of people. In the post-modern culture, leaders seek to deconstruct the hierarchical organizational system, decentralize its power and distribute leadership roles so as to empower people for mission.

Our organization has clearly been shaped and influenced by modernity. The conflict between these two cultures has never been more obvious. So the question is this: How do we, as leaders, respond to this dilemma?

The answer is this: We must take the risk and make the leap. This means we may have to rethink our inherited ways of organizational structure and leadership. It means we may have to give our leaders permission to lead even when their style and methods breakdown our traditional values and challenge our perceived identity. It means we must be willing to abandon any mandate, policy or practice that hinders leaders from fulfilling the army’s mission in their unique ministry context.

So what do you think? Help me wrestle with the issue of organizational structure and leadership.