HOME OR AWAY?

For the uber-cool pastor in the English speaking world – the epithet ‘missional’ tagged unto your church mission statement is a ‘must’. It is meant to reflect your outward look regarding ministry and very often demonstrates that you are taking outreach seriously. It also assumes that you are doing things that are radical or innovative.

I came across this post by Dr. Ed Stetzer (brilliant thinker in the sphere of mission and church growth) who discovered something quite interesting. Read for yourselves:

I am writing this post from Taiwan. As I have been working with both local leaders and American pastors, I have been struck by a few things and thought I would share them with you.

First, I have traveled to Taiwan as a part of the Upstream Collective. The reason is to accompany American pastors with a desire to be missional on a cross-cultural, international encounter. (You can scroll down the last few posts to learn what we are doing in Taiwan.)

Each person on the trip has the missional impulse as part of their DNA, and they are here to consider how they might join God on his mission globally. While I admire the faithfulness of these men, I must admit my surprise to see that there is not a bigger interest in such global concerns among American pastors in general. My fellow travelers seem to be rare of a breed in ministry.

Second, when I blogged about this on Sunday, two readers contacted my hosts– one working with the Presbyterian Church in America and one from the Oversee Missionary Fellowship (OMF). Why? Well, according to one email, the author explained, “I’m particularly interested in attracting young missional church planters here.”

Third, I was recently told by a pastor who called himself “missional” that his church needed to pull back on their global mission support to help their people “be missionaries right here.”

All this provokes me to ask, “Why are so many missional Christians uninvolved in God’s global mission?” As the missional conversation continues and deepens, what has occurred that has led to our blindness to the lost world around us?

There are five reasons I think this has happened:

1) In rediscovering God’s mission, many have only discovered its personal dimensions.

I don’t mean they have somehow localized mission into their interior, “private” life– that would make little sense. Rather, the encouragement for each person to be on mission (to be “missional”) has trended toward a personal obligation to personal settings, rather than toward a global obligation to advance God’s kingdom among all the nations.

“Missional” has merged with privatized Christianity to serve as the reason for personal projects carried out in personal spheres. This is not bad, necessarily. But when the missional impulse is not expanded to include God’s global mission, it results in believers moved only to minister in their own Jerusalems with no mind toward their Judeas, Samarias, and uttermost parts of the earth (Acts 1:8).

2) In responding to God’s mission, many have wanted to be more mission-shaped and have therefore made everything “mission.”

Missions historian Stephen Neil, responding to a similar surge in mission interest (the missio dei movement of the 1950s and following), explained it this way: “If everything is mission then nothing is mission.” Neil’s fear was that the focus would shift from global evangelization (often called “missions”) to societal transformation (often called “mission”). He was right.

Recently John Piper echoed these same concerns, differentiating between evangelism and missions. He reminded us that when “Every Christian is a missionary” equals “missional,” then we have diluted the need for and specialness of missionaries to foreign lands. (Although I would want to nuance John’s language a bit, I agree with his point.)

One American church’s website recently identified their ministry as missional, which they proceeded to define as “reaching out to the community to invite them to come” see what is happening in the church. Another’s young adult community service project consisted of landscaping the church grounds. Inviting people to church and cleaning up the church are noble endeavors, but passing them for “missional” and “service” is ministerial naïveté at best. It demonstrates the fuzziness that creeps in when labels become catch-alls. And as the outer edges of the missional label gets fuzzy so does mission to the outer edges of the world.

3) In relating God’s mission, the message increasingly includes the hurting but less frequently includes the global lost.

One only needs to watch the videos to see the emphases: global orphan projects, eradicating AIDS, Christmas shoeboxes, etc. All of these causes now have advocacy groups, and rightly so, as they are important. However, their vocabulary and frames of reference do not frequently make room for evangelizing the very people they touch. The message of world evangelism, actually, seems more common in legacy/traditional churches than in missional churches. Missional churches seem to speak more of unserved peoples rather than unreached peoples. As we engage to deliver justice, we must also deliver the gospel regardless of anyone’s status in a culture.

4) In refocusing on God’s mission, many are focusing on being good news rather than telling good news.

St. Francis allegedly said,”Preach the gospel at all times; when necessary, use words.” Interestingly enough, Francis never actually said this, nor would he have done so due to his membership in a preaching order. But it is a pithy quote tossed into mission statements and vision sermons in missional churches all around my country. Why? It seems that many in the missional conversation place a higher value on serving the global hurting rather than evangelizing the global lost. Or perhaps it is just easier.

I am not urging a dichotomy here, only noting that one already exists. It is ironic, though, that as many missional Christians have sought to “embody” the gospel, they have chosen to forsake one member of Christ’s body; the mouth.

5) In reiterating God’s mission, many lose the context of the church’s global mission and needed global presence.

For whatever reason– the admirable one of commitment to the local church or the ignoble one of commitment to personalized consumeristic Christianity– we have lost the grand scope of the entire family of God. While Christ calls people from all tongues, tribes, and nations, we have become content with our own tongue, tribe, and nation. Many churches are wonderfully embracing the missional imperative, but as they seek to “own” the mission by adapting their church into a missional movement in their local community, some inadvertently localize God’s mission itself and lose the vital connection all believers share together. A hyper-focus on our own community results in a, have lost vision for the communion of the saints.

So how do we fully embrace missional without losing the mission? The Mission Exchange (formerly the Evangelical Foreign Mission Society) asked me to talk to their global leaders on the topic “How to Put ‘Missions’ Back into Missional.” In my talk, I proposed four principles we needed to consider:

First, recognize it is God’s mission, and we need to be passionate about the mission as He describes it. We don’t own mission and it is not ours to define. A church vision statement is fine, but God’s mission is better and bigger. Our first task is to submit to God’s mission.

Secondly, evangelicals have understated the call to serve the poor and the hurting and need a stronger engagement in social justice. This sounds counterintuitive if we are seeking to remedy the loss of concern for articulated evangelism. But social engagement entails relational engagement, and relational engagement entails opportunities to share the gospel. The successes and experiences in our communities should awaken hearts and minds to global needs. We just need to maintain the reason for social justice: the glory of God in the worship of Jesus.

Third, share God’s deep concern about His mission to the nations– that His name be praised from the lips of men and women from every corner of the globe. Feel the Great Commission in your bones. Ask God to turn your heart to those you cannot see. As Paul did, develop ways to “struggle personally” (Colossians 2:1) for those far away.

Fourthly, churches that are serious about joining God on his mission will obey his commands to disciple the nations. The end product of missional endeavors should be a thriving Christian ready to produce more thriving Christians.
It appears to me that many missional churches are missing the Great Commission in the name of being missional. That makes zero sense. It is a huge (but historically common) mistake.

If we are truly interested in being missional– in joining God on His mission– our efforts should actually reflect His stated mission. We are bound to the Great Commandment as the fullest human expression of God’s love. But the Commandment is not hermetically sealed off from the Great Commission. Rather, the Great Commission provides the what of mission, while the Great Commandment provides part of the how. Answering the age-old question of “Who is my neighbor?” should result in the desire to “make disciples of all nations.”

Rather than having this just an observation, why not use the influence that you have to support, encourage and be involved in missions?

TRYING HARDER OR SURRENDER?

‘The crux of the gospel message is not a call to rededication, but a call to repentance. If one’s previous commitment did not keep him walking in obedience, a re-commitment is no more likely to make him faithful. The proper response to disobedience is not a commitment to try harder, but brokenness and repentance for rejecting the will of Almighty God. God looks for surrender to His will. Rather than asking church members to repeatedly promise to try harder, churches must call their people to repent before Holy God.’   Richard. Blackaby

I came across this quote as I was preparing myself for last Sunday’s message. I was looking at God’s merciful gift of numerous ’second chances’ (pardon the oxymoron).

As a fully fledged Evangelical I experienced and practiced re-dedications, altar calls, ministry times believing in heir effectiveness. I look back and see some very significant times in my own life.

But something strikes a chord in what RB says. I track back in time and see much failure in my ‘rededication’ episodes. Maybe we should talk more about and practice repentance. That probably should include elements like:

• a sorrowful and regretful realisation of sinfullness and rebellion
• a change of mindset
• a reversal of direction

As ever looking for your thoughts…. (thank you for those who contribute in shaping this

RELEVANCE

An issue that will almost always spark debate in the Christian circles is the issue of relevance. I have been challenged afresh over the last few days on this issue.

I think that very often the extremes prevail. Either we are disengaged with our world, isolated and therefore unable to ave an impact. Jesus hinted at that in the Sermon on the Mount as He he encouraged the disciples who are ‘the light of the world’ not to hide it under a bushel.

On the other hand we become so obsessed with relevance that we almost become worshipping the idol of relevance. We keep reinventing ourselves, adding another fad in the hope that those who are not following Christ might come and enjoy. So we get another smoke machine, brew some lattes and get a DJ to come to our services…. (I’m being a bit naughty). Maybe we even forget what we are about – reminding me of the salt that loses its saltiness, from the Sermon the Mount.

Where do we go to avoid these extremes? How do we strike a balance? What are some of the ‘checks’ we can have in place to evaluate our relevance or irrelevance? Was Jesus ‘relevant’?

Looking at His ministry here is what I see regarding relevance:

• HE CAME  through the Incarnation, living, teaching and ‘doing life’ among us
• HE ONLY DID what He saw the Father doing – living a guided, purposeful life
• HE SAID & SHOWED blending word & deed what the Kingdom of God was about
• HE BROKE artificial cultural, ethnic & social bariers
• HE REMAINED DISTINCTIVE often offending rather than blending in
• HE SACRIFICED His life for those He came to rescue

These might be some good guiding principles from the Master’s life? What do you think?

Man in the Mirror

 

 

 

 

Richard Baxter gave eight reasons that ministers should examine themselves:

1.    You have heaven to win or lose yourselves…  A holy calling will not save an unholy man.

2.    You have sinful inclinations as well as others.

3.    [You] have greater temptations than most men.

4.    The tempter will make his first and sharpest onset upon you. If you will be leaders against him, he will spare you no further than God restrains him.

5.    Many eyes are upon you, and therefore there will be many to observe your falls.

6.    Your sins are more aggravated than those of other men. They have more of hypocrisy in them, and are more detrimental to the cause of religion.

7.    The honor of your Lord and Master, and of His holy truth, doth lie more on you than other men.

8.    The souls of your hearers and the success of your labors do very much depend upon your self-examination.

The great Puritan ‘pastor to the pastors’ brings an incredible reminder of the wonderful privilege and enormous responsibility that all those of us who are in leadership in the church.

It caused me to search my soul, first for His honour and approval and secondly that I may not hinder God’s work among us.

On a Saturday night – it is a good way of preparing myself. If you are a leader take some time to do the same. Maybe you can pray for your leaders too.

Good Preaching

Very often the amount of feedback from my regular congregation is very limited. Most often they would be along the lines ‘good message’ or ‘you were on fire today’ as well as the occasional ’that was good tonight’. I am very grateful for those comments. Also - sometimes I have criticisms queries or comments – they help too.

But I very often wonder – ‘was my preaching right in tone, content, presentation and length’? I am even tempted to give people a chance for a written (anonymous) feedback.

Then I stumbled on this on Tullian Tchividjian’s blog (I am reading his ‘Unfashionable’ at the moment too) and I think it is a very helpful evaluation:

Two weeks ago I mentioned in my sermon that God grows Christians by feeding them his Word. One way he does this is by providing the church with teachers and preachers. This means that if we are going to grow we need to be sitting at the feet of reliable carriers of God’s truth. This, however, begs the question: how can we identify a reliable carrier of God’s truth? The Bible makes it clear that there are many unreliable carriers of so-called truth. Satan masquerades as an angel of light seeking to deceive. So we need a lot of biblical discernment here. Just because a teacher or preacher comes in Jesus’ name with a Bible under his arm doesn’t automatically mean he is reliable.

Thankfully both the Bible and church history give us some direction here. So I want to provide you with a brief list of five questions (based on the five sola’s of the Reformation) that can help you discern the reliability of a particular teacher or preacher.

Question 1 (Sola Scriptura): Does the preacher ground everything he says in the Bible? Does he, in other words, begin with the authority and sufficiency of Scripture? A reliable carrier of God’s truth seeks to revel in, wrestle with, and expound from, the Bible. He starts with the Bible. All of his comments flow from what a particular passage in the Bible says. He doesn’t simply use the Bible to support what he wants to say. That is, he submits to what the Bible says, he does not seek to submit the Bible to what he says. He cares about both the Old Testament and the New Testament. He refuses to take verses out of context. He recognizes the unity of the Bible. He acknowledges that both the Old Testament and the New Testament tell one story and point to one figure, namely that God saves sinners through the accomplished work of his son Jesus Christ.

Question 2 (Sola Gratia): Does the preacher freely emphasize that because of sin, a right relationship with God can only be established by God’s grace alone? Beware of any teaching that emphasizes man’s ability over God’s ability; man’s freedom over God’s freedom; man’s power over God’s power; man’s initiative over God’s initiative. Beware of any teaching which subtlety communicates that a right relationship with God depends ultimately on human response over Divine sovereignty.

Question 3 (Sola Fide): Does the preacher stress that salvation is not achieved by what we can do, rather salvation is received by faith in what Christ has already done? It has been rightly stated that there really are only two religions: the religion of human accomplishment and the religion of Divine accomplishment. Does the preacher emphasize the former or the latter? A reliable carrier of God’s truth always highlights the fact that God saves sinners; sinners don’t save themselves.

Question 4 (Sola Christus): Does the preacher underline that Christ is the exclusive mediator between God and man? Does the explainer both affirm and proclaim that Jesus is “the way, the truth, and the life” and that nobody comes to the Father but by Christ? Does he talk about sin and the necessity of Christ? Preachers must learn how to unveil and unpack the truth of the Gospel from every Biblical text they preach in such a way that it results in the exposure of both the idols of our culture and the idols of our hearts. The faithful exposition of our true Savior from every passage in the Bible painfully reveals all of the pseudo-saviors that we trust in culturally and personally. Every sermon ought to disclose the subtle ways in which we as individuals and we as a culture depend on lesser things than Jesus to provide the security, acceptance, protection, affection, meaning, and satisfaction that only Christ can supply. In this way, good preachers must constantly show just how relevant and necessary Jesus is; they must work hard to show that we are great sinners but Christ is a great Savior.

Question 5 (Sola Deo Gloria): Does the preacher exalt God above all? A reliable explainer will always lead you to marvel at God. A true carrier of God’s truth will always lead you to encounter the glory of God. A God-centered teacher is just that: God-centered. He will preach and teach in such a way that you find yourself hungering and thirsting for God. You will listen to sermon after sermon and walk away with grand impressions of Divine personality, not grand impressions of human personality.

This is just a start, but I hope it serves as a resource to help you determine the reliability of a particular teacher or preacher.

IJesus?

I am constantly fascinated with the variety of versions of Jesus that people seem to worship. I guess it is almost as if we search and expect to find a particular version that suits our consumer driven lifestyle.

While some might be tempted to say, ‘well if that’s the Jesus you see – that’s perfectly fine’, I am afraid that we might unconsciously and subtly step into theological error and ultimately idolatry.

And that’s why we must allow the Scriptures (not the Shack) to shape our orthodox thinking and adequate worship. Here are some fantastic words I came across that inspired and encouraged me greatly.

What follows is adapted from the end of the talk on the “Life of Christ” Kevin DeYoung gave at the Next 2009 Conference

The greatness of God is most clearly displayed in his Son. And the glory of the gospel is only made evident in his Son. That’s why Jesus’ question to his disciples is so important: “Who do you say that I am?”

The question is doubly crucial in our day because not every Jesus is the real Jesus. Almost no one is as popular in this country as Jesus. Hardly anyone would dare to say a bad word about him. Just look at what a super-fly friendly dude he is over there. But how many people know the real Jesus?

There’s the Republican Jesus who is against tax increases and activists judges, for family values and owning firearms.

There’s Democrat Jesus who is against Wall Street and Wal-Mart, for reducing our carbon footprint and printing money.

There’s Therapist Jesus who helps us cope with life’s problems, heals our past, tells us how valuable we are and not to be so hard on ourselves.

There’s Starbucks Jesus who drinks fair trade coffee, loves spiritual conversations, drives a hybrid and goes to film festivals.

There’s Open-minded Jesus who loves everyone all the time no matter what, except for people who are not as open-minded as you.

There’s Touchdown Jesus who helps athletes fun faster and jump higher than non-Christians and determines the outcomes of Super Bowls.

There’s Martyr Jesus, a good man who died a cruel death so we can feel sorry for him

There’s Gentle Jesus who was meek and mild, with high cheek bones, flowing hair, and walks around barefoot, wearing a sash and looks very German.

There’s Hippie Jesus who teaches everyone to give peace a chance, imagine a world without religion, and helps us remember all you need is love.

There’s Yuppie Jesus who encourages us to reach our full potential, reach for the stars, and buy a boat.

There’s Spirituality Jesus who hates religion, churches, pastors, priests, and doctrine; and would rather have people out in nature, finding the god within and listening to ambiguously spiritual musical.

There’s Platitude Jesus, good for Christmas specials, greeting cards, and bad sermons; he inspires people to believe in themselves, and lifts us up so we can walk on mountains.

There’s Revolutionary Jesus who teaches us to rebel against the status quo, stick it to the man, and blame things on the “system.”

There’s Guru Jesus, a wise, inspirational teacher who believes in you and helps you find your center.

There’s Boyfriend Jesus who wraps his arms around us as we sing about his intoxicating love in our secret place.

There’s Good Example Jesus who shows you how to help people, change the planet, and become a better you.

And then there’s Jesus Christ, the Son of the living God. Not just another prophet. Not just another Rabbi. Not just another wonder-worker. He was the one they had been waiting for: the Son of David and Abraham’s chosen seed, the one to deliver us from captivity, the goal of the Mosaic law, Yahweh in the flesh, the one to establish God’s reign and rule, the one to heal the sick, give sight to the blind, freedom to the prisoners and proclaim good news to the poor, the lamb of God come to take away the sins of the world.

This Jesus was the Creator come to earth and the beginning of a new creation. He embodied the covenant, fulfilled the commandments, and reversed the curse. This Jesus is the Christ that God spoke of to the serpent, the Christ prefigured to Noah in the flood, the Christ promised to Abraham, the Christ prophesied through Balaam before the Moabites, the Christ guaranteed to Moses before he died, the Christ promised to David when he was king, the Christ revealed to Isaiah as a suffering servant, the Christ predicted through the prophets and prepared for through John the Baptist.

This Christ is not a reflection of the current mood or the projection of our own desires. He is our Lord and God. He is the Father’s Son, Savior of the world, and substitute for our sins–more loving, more holy, and more wonderfully terrifying than we ever thought possible.

I pray that today you would be reminded of the authentic Messiah, Friend of Sinners and coming King and give an answer yourself to that question He posed: ‘Who do you say I am?’

 

IT addicts, geeks, techies & gadget junkies beware

Pondering…

So many of us who are interested or concerned with ecclesiology, church growth and evangelism would spend time listening intently to the latest podcast or reading the latest book on the subject.

You hear of ’seeker-friendly’, purpose-driven, organic church, simple church, multi-site church and ‘fresh expressions’. Some are ‘old hat’, some are relatively new, some are sensible, some are inventive and some are just plain intentionally provocative. Still – they all seem to have a genuine desire to connect with those who need to hear the Good News.

I heard someone quote Craig Groeschell (I like LC wonderful generosity and what they have done with the best Christian app on Itunes) who said something like this: ‘to reach people no one else is reaching you need to do things no one else is doing.’

And the speaker challenged those who were listening to make whatever changes in their church service and ministries in order to reach people.

I hope I am not over-reacting or being defensive. I am not averse to change but I am nauseated by the current church obsession with change.

I wondered whether that’s why we get it wrong: mixing-up what church gatherings should be (koinonia, ecclesia) with what outreach should be.

A couple of questions to ponder over (while musing over Acts & the Epistles):

• Were the Early Church gatherings primarily for ‘insiders’ or ‘outsiders’?
• Is mission/outreach/witnessing a Church task or a personal one?

Think of me (Me?)

I first heard Francis Chan speaking on one of the Passion sessions and loved his orthodoxy as well a his enthusiasm as a communicator. Finding more about FC and Cornerstone (the church he leads in California, Simi Cornerstone) I found a radical building project/approach to missions. Here is a video that explains a bit about it : i.e. the decision not to throw tens of millions of dollars at a new building.

A compelling story to say the least, and if you click onthe link to their facility site, it’s a beautiful community concept as well.

The story is that his church was on track to spend 20 million dollars to build a new building.  What happened, and I don’t know how, was that the decision was made to build an outdoor meeting place instead.  Much cheaper.  Much much cheaper.  And the money that was saved would then go to the truly poor around the world.  And, the story goes, meeting outside on rainy days or hot days would serve to remind folks in the church of the discomfort others live in every day.

Spend less.  Create empathy.  Mobilize to show mercy.  Sounds like church to me.

He told this story at the National Worship Leader Conference.  He said that he told them it was repulsive to spend that much money on themselves, and he could never pastor such a group of people.  He said that he, as a pastor, would be responsible for that before God.

He suggested that every time an offering was taken that it was divided equally – half spent on their church, half spent on others outside the church.  This is the only way Christians can claim that they love their neighbor as much as themselves.

He said that if we really believe Jesus is starving (cf. Matt 25), then we can’t sit back and let that happen and expect to call ourselves Christians.

So, he told the elders it was repulsive to spend that kind of money on themselves when Jesus was starving on the other side of the world.  He suggested building a park with an amphitheater that the community could use and they could hold services in – and would cost less money; the rest could be given away.  When one asked about the weather, Chan reminded them of the Green Bay Packers fans who sit through a blizzard for the season every year.  Packers fans are that dedicated for the team; are Christians that dedicated to sit outside in Southern California weather so that Jesus, who is starving on the other side of the world, can be fed?

Here is what they say:

On a practical level, Cornerstone has been unable to grow numerically for the past seven years. This is due to lack of space. While many would be content to keep our church at the current size, our mission statement reads that we seek to reach “every individual” in our community.

The obvious solution would be to buy more property and build a bigger building. However, this would require spending an amount of money that none of the leaders feel peace about spending. This lack of peace primarily springs from a desire to give more to the poor who are suffering around the world.

The idea of building an outdoor sanctuary rather than an auditorium sprung from a desire to save millions of dollars.  It came from a belief that God would rather we spend that money in other ways. It comes from a thought that God would receive more glory from seeing His children sacrifice for others – namely, those around the world who lack basic necessities. The idea then evolved into developing the property into more of a park-like setting that could be enjoyed by the church and community throughout the week. In this way, we would be giving to our community as well as to the needy around the world.

In reality, this is about more than a building. The park/amphitheater is an expression of a mindset. It represents a group of people who are willing to sacrifice their own comforts in order to better care for others. The following are not just reasons to build inexpensively, but they are the reasons why Cornerstone strives to be a “giving” church.

1. We love the poor: People around the world desperately need aid (Romans 12:13).                                                                     2. We love Jesus: He says that He is the One suffering (Matthew 25:35-36).
3. It’s best for us: We’ll be more joyful if we give rather than receive (Acts 20:35).
4. It affects unbelievers: They are impacted when they see good works (Matthew 5:16).
5. It models Christ: Laying down our lives is how we imitate Christ (1 John 3:16-17).
6. We gain eternal rewards: God rewards those who care for the poor (Matthew 9:21).

Blind Spots

Here is a very thoughtful article from Leadership magazine – highlighting an issue that can easily be neglected. Of course there are extremes on the ‘other side’ too. Many of us can be extremely uncomfortable with the facilities that some of the US mega-churches have ploughed money in. Yet still, first impressions count for a lot and we ought to be good stewards of the resources God has entrusted us with.

My daughter was reaching out to Daddy. What a joy to see our nine-month-old longing for me from the arms of the nursery worker following our mid-week service. Hannah was being gently rocked by the wife of one of our elders, but it was clear she wanted down. I thanked the woman for watching our daughter while I led a prayer group and my wife taught some of the older children. She assured me that she held Hannah the entire time, except when Hannah was sleeping in one of the stacked cribs. While I appreciated her diligence, I let her know that Hannah enjoyed crawling.

“I’m not comfortable with her crawling on this floor,” the worker replied.

The floor was carpeted and vacuumed regularly, so I asked why. With a look that conveyed a terrible secret, she confessed, “The carpet may look clean, but it’s laid on a wood floor that was built on top of the original tile floor because we have a water problem. I’m sure you smell the mustiness.”

I acknowledged the damp smell. She continued, “I don’t want to get anyone in trouble, but look at the wallpaper.” She pointed out some dark spots that crept up from below the carpet level. “I don’t let any babies crawl on this floor.”

About that time my wife joined us in the nursery. When I showed her the marks on the wallpaper, she said she knew about them and also tried to keep little ones off the floor. The elder’s wife explained that they had moved the nursery downstairs to create a church office upstairs. Since water often leaked in that corner of the basement, they built the wood floor to allow for carpet on the floor of the new nursery.

On the way home, I asked my wife why she didn’t tell me about her concerns sooner. With the look of a supportive spouse, she gently responded: “We’ve been here less than a year, and I know you have several other areas of ministry that need changing first. Since Hannah is the most consistent baby in the nursery, it will look self-serving if you try to change something they just built the year before we arrived.”

Ouch. Talk about feeling convicted. And clueless.

I realized changing the nursery was not just a facility issue, but really a ministry issue. I’d heard the clichéd facility priority list—take care of the nursery and the women’s restroom above everything else. But in this case, I felt the issue personally. Though I overcame my guilt—thanks to a supportive wife—I intensified my zeal to address the nursery issue.

With a nursery that smelled musty and had mold marks on the walls, we were sending a terrible message to visitors: “Your babies may not be safe here, and we aren’t doing anything about it.”

Why did I miss this clear message? I love my children. I look out for their best interests. I had a child in the nursery. So why did I miss something that should have been so clear?

As I reflect back on that situation, I realize several issues commonly cloud our perspective of our facilities. Now as I work with a church architect, I find myself working with pastors to pull back those clouding issues to understand the messages our facilities send.

When facility issues are ministry issues

The first clouding factor is determining what facility issues are indeed ministry issues. Many views exist on this. At the two ends of the spectrum are quality and humility, each of which can be supported biblically.

Proponents of quality suggest that God deserves the best of everything. The quality of the Temple, tabernacle, and worship elements provide our example for highest quality in our church buildings.

Those who espouse humility point out the vitality of worship by Christians through the centuries and around the world that meet in crude structures—if any at all. Since we are greatly blessed with any facility compared to other Christian cultures, we should limit effort and expense on our facilities.

Both positions reflect some truth.

Given the location of our church, there were basic community standards that people expect to be met. And basic cleanliness and freedom from molds in the nursery were certainly community standards. At that time, the news reported accounts of children dying due to exposure to the mold Stachybotrys. Were we possibly endangering our children?

Calls to several environmental services taught me more about molds than I ever imagined! I reasoned that if I could prove that we had Stachybotrys, then everyone would have to agree to remodeling or moving the nursery. However, several different molds resembled Stachybotrys, so we could only be sure through a costly environmental analysis. Trying to limit expense for our congregation that was stretched financially, I initially kept probing for other options to verify if we had a potentially deadly mold.

Then one environmental expert asked me, “If this is for a church nursery, are there really any molds that would be acceptable—whether they are deadly or not?”

His question brought clarity to a situation I’d been cluttering with irrelevant detail. In our community, there should be no molds on any nursery walls. It is a clear ministry issue to remove health hazards for our children.

Duh!

Why had I been slow to grasp something that should have been so clear? Because of a second clouding issue.

How many “chips” it will cost?

It isn’t a very spiritual analogy, but I’ve never forgotten a Leadership article by Leith Anderson that compares pastoral credibility and influence to winning and losing chips at a poker game. His point: you need to know your current chip count before spending your leadership stake on activities that may cost more chips than you’ve got. I realized there was wisdom in that article.

Since I’d only been at the church for a year, I was still assessing my chip count. I assumed that I would lose chips by pushing a nursery renovation, and I thought I needed to save my chips for other new initiatives. But when the environmental expert asked whether any mold was acceptable in a church nursery, this clouding issue disappeared.

I realized I could move “all in” because no one can rationally defend allowing any molds around infants. In fact, identifying such a readily solved problem could actually gain chips.

We proceeded to move the nursery back upstairs near the sanctuary where it made much more sense for young families. The office moved downstairs to another space. In the room with the mold problem, we tore out the carpet, wood floor, and moldy drywall. A special paint coating and new tile floor provided a space that could get wet if we experienced leaks. We also addressed the cause of the water leaks as best we could.

I think I actually gained chips through the process. With a reasonable presentation of the case, everyone was on board with the changes.

This prompted me to lead the renovation of the next clichéd priority space—the women’s restroom. Since it was also in the basement, guess what kept appearing on the walls? Black molds. Since we’d already dealt with mold issues, I reasoned that similar reasoning for renovating the women’s restroom would be welcomed by all.

Wrong again. Because of a third clouding issue.

Conditions that have become “normal”

We become easily attached to what we’ve grown accustomed to over time. When we enter a space for the first time, we notice the abnormalities. But as we grow accustomed to our own spaces, we quickly lose objectivity—and those abnormalities disappear from our minds. That’s why it’s easier for guests to recognize faded wallpaper than for most residents.

Renovating the women’s restroom was more complicated than I realized. Repeated efforts in the past to paint the block wall surfaces were only a temporary solution as the molds kept reappearing. We hired a couple of contractors to perform specialized tasks: sealing the walls, floor, and ceiling to keep the molds from reappearing. As a result the project cost more money than the nursery changes. But the fixtures, colors, and finishes produced a room everyone would appreciate.

Well, almost everyone.

Following the project, one woman sat in my office complaining about the money spent on the women’s restroom renovation. Her judgment was clouded by the first issue—she couldn’t discern that this facility issue was a ministry issue. She tried to appeal to the humility position—that we had wonderful facilities compared to a Third World country. Why did we spend so much money on the renovation?

“We could have sent the money to our missionaries,” she said, playing the humility trump card. She only shook her head when I countered that sending the money to missionaries in the “uttermost parts of the world” is important, but we also need to invest in areas that help us reach our own “Jerusalem.”

I reasoned that moldy walls are as unacceptable to the women’s restroom as the nursery. So I reminded her of the molds on the restroom walls and also some of the stall partitions.

“I don’t know, it kind of had a homey feel to it,” she responded. I ended the conversation as graciously as I could.

When I told my wife that comment, she was stunned and countered, “Well, not our home.” Today we laugh recalling this event. But it clearly illustrates how clouded people’s judgment can become. What we overlook, we learn to accept. What we accept, we eventually become attached to. And what we become attached to, we resist changing—even unclean or unsanitary conditions.

This situation taught me that there will always be resistance to change, no matter how well prayed for and planned. Realizing this fact gave me renewed energy to address a full sanctuary renovation—a project I always knew would meet some resistance. But we made it through that project as well to enjoy a renovated facility—a facility I believe pleases God.

Any facility change will meet resistance. Since none of us likes resistance, we can become tentative about the facility changes that are truly necessary for healthy ministry. But getting past the blind spots and pulling back the layers of clouding issues can provide us with clearer vision to see what God wants our facilities to be.

Fresh Eyes for a Clearer view

A congregation on Chicago’s North Shore area built a new worship center two decades ago. When they called a new pastor two years ago, he was shocked to find steep steps leading from the entry area to the worship center. He called them “the climbing wall.”

But recently when I visited the church and commented on the steps, he said that he had gotten used to them and had forgotten how imposing and intimidating they appeared to him as a newcomer.

In a short amount of time, we can lose our ability to see our facilities as a newcomer sees them. We lose our objectivity in evaluating facility issues.

Here are a few ways to look at your building with clear eyes.

Recall your first days at the church. When you first visited the church, your objectivity was fresh. Think back to your first impressions.

Ask your spouse. Men and women notice different things. My wife knew all about the mold issue in the nursery long before I noticed it.

Read past prayer or planning journals. If you journal, skim through past entries. You may have jotted down facility issues you wanted to address—but have forgotten. Reading past records may jog many helpful recollections.

Prayerfully walk around the building by yourself. The church building seems a much different place when no one else is there. The quiet moments in prayerful reflection may enable the Holy Spirit to open your eyes to an entirely new idea.

“Visit” the church with a friend who’s never been there. A true visitor to the church will have a completely fresh perspective. Also, asking a non-Christian for his perspective may open your eyes to the facilities—and Lord willing, his eyes to the gospel.

—JR

Jim Rodgers is a church leadership servant/project manager for Wildesign Group “Ministry First” Architects in Crystal Lake, Illinois.